Legal Research
Cases
Siafakas v R

Siafakas v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 100 23 June 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Siafakas v R [2016] NSWCCA 100
Hearing dates: 22 April 2016
Decision date: 23 June 2016
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Harrison J at [109];
Schmidt J at [113]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal in respect of grounds 1 and 4.

2. Appeal allowed in part.

3. Set aside the verdict of guilty on count 1.

4. Set aside the sentence imposed on 9 May 2014, and in lieu thereof, sentence the appellant:

(a) in respect of count 3, to a term of imprisonment of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 5 months;

(b) in respect of count 5, to a fixed term of imprisonment of 4 years.
Each of those sentences will commence on 3 January 2012. The earliest date on which the appellant would be eligible for release on parole will be 3 June 2017.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – trial before judge sitting without a jury – two counts of knowingly taking part in manufacture of prohibited drug – appellant leased premises and participated in manufacture of precursors and prohibited drugs – appellant accepted that he was involved in the manufacture of a precursor – in one count, the precursor was also a prohibited drug – whether trial judge erred in formulating mental element of offence – whether trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for finding that appellant was aware of the actual substance being manufactured – whether verdicts unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence – Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 24(2)
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A
Criminal Code (WA), ss 22, 24
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (WA)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2011 (NSW), Sch 1, 2, 4
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 3, 10, 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 25, 29, 30, 33; Sch 1
Cases Cited: AK v State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; 232 CLR 438
Bahri Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 89 ALJR 776
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; 218 CLR 493
R v CWW (1993) 32 NSWLR 348; 70 A Crim R 517
R v Hendricks [2011] NSWCCA 203
R v Lau (1998) 105 A Crim R 167
R v Ruiz-Avila [2003] NSWCCA 264; 142 A Crim R 459
R v Van Xuan Bui [2005] VSCA 300
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Tabe v The Queen [2005] HCA 59; 225 CLR 418
W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Yousef Jidah v R [2014] NSWCCA 270
Zaburoni…

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 Siafakas v R

Details

AGLC: Siafakas v R [2016] NSWCCA 100
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 100
Decision Date: 23 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Siafakas v R involved an appeal by the appellant, Siafakas, against his conviction on two counts of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug. The trial was conducted before a judge sitting without a jury. Siafakas had leased premises and participated in the manufacture of precursors and prohibited drugs. He accepted his involvement in the manufacture of a precursor, which was also a prohibited drug in one count. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred in formulating the mental element of the offence and whether the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding that Siafakas was aware of the actual substance being manufactured. The appeal also questioned whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.

The court considered the statutory provisions under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), section 24(2), which outlines the elements of the offence of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug. The court examined whether the trial judge correctly interpreted and applied the mental element required for conviction. It assessed whether there were sufficient reasons provided by the trial judge for finding that Siafakas was aware of the actual substance being manufactured, considering both the statutory requirements and the evidence presented. The court further evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts and whether they were open on the evidence.

In its decision, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in formulating the mental element of the offence. The reasoning provided by the trial judge was deemed adequate, as it was supported by the evidence and correctly applied the statutory requirements. The court concluded that the verdicts were neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and Siafakas' convictions on both counts were upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the maintenance of Siafakas' convictions on both counts of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug.

Orders