Regina v Sinanovic - [2000] NSWCCA 386

CITATION: Regina v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 386

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60116/96

HEARING DATE(S): Friday, 8 September 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 October 2000

PARTIES :

The Crown
Hakija Sinanovic (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Fitzgerald JA at 1; Newman J at 23; Greg James J at 68

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 94/11/0628

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL : W C Dawe QC (Crown)
Appl in person

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Appl in person

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - obtaining money by deception - leave to appeal against conviction - unmeritorious appeal

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
R v Lawrence (1981) NSWLR 122

DECISION: 1. Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60116/96

FITZGERALD JA
NEWMAN J
GREG JAMES J

TUESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2000

REGINA v Hakija SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT
1    FITZGERALD JA: On 17 June 1994, the applicant was arraigned on two counts of dishonestly obtaining money for himself by deception contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. Pursuant to s 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, he elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury. His trial took place before Karpin DCJ from 28 November to 1 December 1995. Her Honour convicted the appellant on both counts, which were stated in the following terms in the indictment:

“(1) For that he on or about 18 August 1993 at Campsie, in the State of New South Wales, dishonestly obtained for himself $10,000 by deception, namely, by falsely representing to Denis Xenos that the said $10,000 would be invested in foreign currency and would be repaid in drachma to Denis Xenos within 3 to 4 days at the rate of about 210 drachmas for each Australian dollar when, to the knowledge of the said Hakija Sinonovic, it would not.

(2) Further, for that he on or about 19 August 1993 at Campsie, in the State of New South Wales, dishonestly obtained for himself $53,200 by deception, namely, by falsely representing to Denis Zenos that the said $53,200 would be invested in foreign currency and would be repaid in drachma to Denis Xenos within 3 to 4 days at the rate of about 210 drachmas for each Australian dollar when, to the knowledge of the said Hakija Sinonovic, it would not.”

2    On 11 April 1996, the applicant was sentenced on the first count to imprisonment for 12 months to commence on 29 January 1996 and expire on 28 January 1997 and on the second count to imprisonment to commence on 29 January 1996 and expire on 28 March 1997. The additional term of imprisonment set by her Honour was 16 months to commence on 29 March 1997 and expire on 28 July 1998. The applicant has served the sentences imposed but is now in prison for other offences.
3    The applicant was represented before…

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 Regina v Sinanovic

Details

AGLC: Regina v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 386
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 386
Decision Date: 10 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Sinanovic, the accused was convicted of obtaining money by deception under section 122 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The appeal against conviction was dismissed on the grounds of the appeal being unmeritorious. The court examined the appeal's merit and found that the appeal did not present a real prospect of success as it lacked a significant arguable error of law or fact. The central issue before the court was whether the appeal had merit and whether it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal against the conviction.

The court reviewed the evidence presented during the trial and the arguments made by both parties. It determined that the prosecution had established the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the accused's actions constituted deception, and that he had obtained money by means of that deception. The court also considered the arguments presented by the defence, but found them to be unconvincing. The court was satisfied that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The court held that the appeal was unmeritorious as there was no significant arguable error of law or fact. The court found that the appeal did not present a real prospect of success, and that granting leave to appeal would not be in the interests of justice. The court also noted that the accused had been given a fair trial, and that the verdict was consistent with the evidence presented. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, and that the accused's conviction stand as determined by the trial judge.

Orders