R v Zouras - [2002] VSCA 182

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 20 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
GEORGE ZOURAS

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BUCHANAN and CHERNOV, JJ.A
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 November 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 November 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 182

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Trafficking in a drug of dependence - No evidence of applicant's participation in trafficking - Verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Weissensteiner v. R. (1993) 178 C.L.R. 217, distinguished.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr G.J. Thomas	Victoria Legal Aid

CHARLES, J.A.:

I will invite Buchanan, J.A. to give the first judgment.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

The applicant, who is now 51 years old, and a co-accused, one Dimitrios Nicolacopoulos, were arraigned in the County Court and pleaded not guilty to a presentment containing three counts alleging that on 25 March 1999 they trafficked in, cultivated and had in their possession not less than a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, Cannabis L. After a six day trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, which alleged that the applicant trafficked in a drug of dependence contrary to the provisions of s.72 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 ("the Act"). The applicant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seven years with a minimum term of five years' imprisonment before he was to be eligible for parole.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The particulars of the ground are:

"(a)No jury properly instructed could conclude that the appellant was a party in the offence alleged.
(b)The evidence was incapable of satisfying the jury that the appellant was present at the relevant site at any time after 1997."

In mid 1997 the appellant and Nicolacopoulos were living in a house in East Bentleigh with, among others, Vicky McKernan, the partner of Nicolacopoulos. Ms McKernan fell out with her partner and informed the police that he was cultivating marijuana.

At the trial Ms McKernan gave evidence that on four or five occasions in 1996 and 1997 she drove Nicolacopoulos and the applicant and dropped them off in the country on a road which turned off the Bairnsdale to Omeo Road. Several weeks later she would collect them at the same place. On one occasion when they were

picked up Nicolacopoulos and the applicant had a hessian bag containing marijuana. On 23 July 1997, as a result of information given to them by Ms McKernan and a map found by the police in a car belonging to Nicolacopoulos, the police conducted an air search of the area in which Ms McKernan had dropped off Nicolacopoulos and the applicant, and, as a result, on the following day, located in rough terrain accessible only on foot a hut, a drying room, structures to contain ponds of water and a number of stalks of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Zouras

Details

AGLC: R v Zouras [2002] VSCA 182
Case: [2002] VSCA 182
Decision Date: 19 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Zouras involved the respondent, Zouras, who was charged with trafficking in a drug of dependence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Zouras appealed against his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish his participation in the alleged trafficking.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was evidence that Zouras was aware of the drug trafficking and played a role in it. The court also had to consider the precedent set by Weissensteiner v. R., which held that a verdict of guilt could be unsafe and unsatisfactory if it was not reasonably open to the jury based on the evidence.

The High Court found that the evidence did not establish Zouras's participation in the drug trafficking. The court concluded that the verdict was not reasonably open to the jury based on the evidence presented. The court distinguished the case from Weissensteiner v. R., noting that the evidence in Zouras's case did not support a reasonable inference of his involvement. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

The court ordered that Zouras be acquitted of the charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that a verdict of guilt is supported by sufficient evidence, aligning with the principles established in Weissensteiner v. R.

Orders