Legal Research
Cases
Rohen v The King

Rohen v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 1 12 January 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0140

JACOB ROHEN	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, TAYLOR and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 November 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 January 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 1
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jacob Rohen (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 24 August 2022, Judge Bourke)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug – Whether final address of co-accused caused a substantial miscarriage of justice in the applicant’s trial – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 193, 276.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J. Murphy
Respondent:		Ms K. Breckweg with Ms C. Nicholson
Solicitors
Applicant:	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers Pty Ltd
First Respondent:	Mr S Bruckard PSM, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

PRIEST JA:

For the reasons given by Boyce JA — whose reasons for judgment I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft — I agree that the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence should both be refused.

TAYLOR JA:

I also agree with Boyce JA.

BOYCE JA:

Introduction

An indictment filed in the County Court charged the applicant with attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, cocaine.[1]
[1]Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.1(1) and 307.5(1). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
A jury empanelled to try him found him guilty on 7 June 2022.
Following a plea, on 24 August 2022 the trial judge sentenced the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment, and fixed a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. With respect to conviction the applicant relies on a single ground of appeal which contends that:
A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because of submissions made in the closing address on behalf of the co-accused.
As to sentence, the applicant’s sole ground is expressed in the following terms:
The sentences imposed on the attempting to possess a commercial amount of a border control drug, namely, cocaine, was manifestly excessive.
In my opinion, for the reasons that follow, the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence must be refused.

Conviction

The prosecution case

The prosecution case, insofar as it is relevant to the determination of the current ground of appeal, may be summarised as follows. The prosecution adduced evidence in proof of its case that a consignment of five Xerox printers arrived in Melbourne by air freight from Mexico on 30 April 2017. Prior to delivery at its intended Melbourne address, this consignment was intercepted by investigating officials. Examination of the consignment revealed 10 blocks of cocaine located in the printers — two blocks in each of the five printers. The blocks weighed approximately 22.4 kilograms; the pure weight of cocaine was…

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 Rohen v The King

Details

AGLC: Rohen v The King [2024] VSCA 1
Case: [2024] VSCA 1
Decision Date: 12 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rohen v The King, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug. The applicant was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal was brought before the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The applicant argued that the final address of his co-accused was not disclosed to him until the trial had commenced, which caused a substantial miscarriage of justice. The applicant also argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered these arguments and the relevant legislation, including the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

The court held that the final address of the co-accused was not material to the applicant’s guilt or sentence, and therefore did not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the sentencing range for the offence. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders