Regina v Kovacs

Case [2000] NSWCCA 74


Reported Decision: 111 A Crim R 374

New South Wales


Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Kovacs [2000] NSWCCA 74 revised - 1/05/2000
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60738/98; 60817/98
HEARING DATE(S): 13 August 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 2000

PARTIES :


REGINA - Respondent/Appellant
Lajos KOVACS - Appellant/Respondent
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Simpson J at 2; McInerney AJ at 56
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0354
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER :
Herron DCJ
COUNSEL : Ms E L Fullerton SC - Appellant/Respondent
J V Agius SC - Crown Respondent/Appellant
SOLICITORS: Peter Ash & Associates - Appellant/Respondent
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent/Appellant
LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1904 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987
Evidence Act 1995
CASES CITED:
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
Bunning v Cross(1978) 141 CLR 54 pp 64-65
R v Ridgeway (1995) 184 CLR 19, p 32
R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159, p176
R v Lansdell, unreported NSW CCA 22 May 1995
Weissensteiner v R (1993) 178 CLR 217
R v OGD (1997) 45 NSWLR 744
RPS v R [2000] HCA 3, unreported, 3 february 2000
Bataillard v The King [(1907) 4 CLR 1282 at 1291]
R v Wong and Leung [1999] NSW CCA 420
DECISION: (i) Appeal against conviction dismissed; (ii) Crown appeal allowed, sentence imposed quashed; (iii) Appellant sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years with a non parole period of ten years.




      IN THE COURT OF
      CRIMINAL APPEAL
                          60738/98

      60817/98

      BEAZLEY JA
      SIMPSON J
      McINERNEY AJ

                      Friday 31 March 2000

      REGINA v Lajoz KOVACS
Judgment
1    BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Simpson J
      SIMPSON J :

2    On 2 October 1998, following a jury trial in the District Court, the appellant was convicted on a charge that, in circumstances of aggravation, on 8 December 1997, without reasonable excuse he attempted to obtain possession of not less than the commercial quantity of a prohibited import (heroin), a charge brought under s 233B of the Customs Act 1904 (Cth). The aggravating circumstance was that he had previously (in 1993) been convicted on a charge of importing not less than the traffickable quantity of the same drug. The maximum sentence applicable to the offence is life imprisonment. Judge Herron sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for thirteen years commencing on 8 February 1998 and specified a non parole period of nine years.

3    The appellant appeals against the conviction. The Crown appeals against the sentence, asserting that it is manifestly inadequate.

4    The Crown case can be stated as follows. On Friday 5 December 1997 a Pakistani national, Naeem Raza Hashmi, arrived at Sydney Airport from Pakistan. Strapped to his body were several packages of heroin. The total gross weight of heroin was 2.5 kilograms. The total pure weight was 1.881 kilograms. The heroin was quickly discovered by Customs agents and Hashmi agreed to co-operate with Australian Federal Police in the pursuit of those to whom he was to…

Continue reading Regina v Kovacs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Regina v Kovacs [2000] NSWCCA 74
Case
[2000] NSWCCA 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales dismissed Lajos Kovacs' appeal against conviction for attempting to obtain possession of a commercial quantity of heroin, a charge brought under section 233B of the Customs Act 1904 (Cth). The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his status as a serving prisoner, and in not fully and adequately directing the jury regarding this evidence. The Court found that the evidence was not tendency evidence, and that the trial judge's direction to the jury was appropriate. The Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years with a non parole period of ten years. The Court found the original sentence of thirteen years with a non parole period of nine years to be manifestly inadequate, given the appellant's previous conviction for a similar offence and the fact that the current offence was committed while he was on conditional release.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.