The Queen v Goran Causevic

[2000] QCA 432

[2000] QCA 432

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

DAVIES JA

MACKENZIE J

CA No 227 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

GORAN CAUSEVIC Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/10/2000

JUDGMENT

McMURDO P:  The applicant, who is self-represented today, applied for an extension of time within which for leave to appeal against his sentence.  The applicant was convicted after an eight week trial of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of cannabis under section 233B(1)(cb) Customs Act (Cth) on 18 March 2000.  On 21 March 2000 he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four and a half years.

His application for leave to appeal against sentence was not received in the registry until 6 September 2000 well over four months out of time.  He has not presented any material in sworn form to demonstrate a reason or reasons for this delay, but in his application he states that he became depressed and confused after the trial.  He could not afford legal fees for an appeal and the time for the lodging of the application passed him by without him fully realising the consequences.

He also emphasised that English is his second language although I note his written application and indeed his oral representations to us today do not suggest that this is a major problem.  He has lived in Australia since 1968 arriving when he was a young man.

The applicant was convicted together with Pericic, Reeves and Thorne.  He is now 50 years old and was born in Croatia.  He has two dependant children and has no relevant prior convictions. 

According to the Judge's sentencing remarks, the applicant, his fellow offenders and one McLean planned some time before August 1996 to import between 2 and 5 tonnes of cannabis.  It seems McLean was the mastermind and an experienced importer and distributor of large quantities of drugs.

The applicant was, as his Honour noted, "something of a lieutenant" to McLean.  Reeves and Thorne in discussion with the applicant and McLean arranged for their motor boat to be traded in for a boat with a larger carrying capacity for its size.  Pericic, an experienced fisherman, was to provide the nautical expertise and advised on appropriate secluded launching and retrieval places for boats on the coast between Adelaide and Cape Jervis.

McLean and the applicant travelled to Adelaide and then from Cape Jervis to Kangaroo Island where accommodation vehicles, trailers and boats were organised.  In November the applicant and Pericic inspected isolated parts of the coastline and made contingency plans if there was a threat of detection or an awkwardly placed non-participating vehicle.

Reeves, Thorne and McLean spent large sums of money purchasing expensive boats and vehicles.  At one stage the participants in the conspiracy became aware that their activities in the Nerang River were being videoed and for a time the enterprise floundered until the participants persuaded themselves that the video cameraman was not a member of the Federal Police Force.

McLean finally called off the enterprise when he realised a surveillance device had been located on a car used by the applicant and Pericic in South Australia.  The applicant and his co-accused, together with another co-accused who was acquitted, Tolja, were arrested in March 1997.

His Honour noted that the applicant had shown no remorse and the offence was clearly committed for substantial financial gain.  His Honour also noted that whilst it was relevant that the common enterprise was abandoned prior to its completion the reason for the abandonment was not to desist from unlawful activity but because of fear of apprehension.  His Honour also noted the dominant role of McLean in this venture to whom all others were subservient. 

The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence was life imprisonment.  The offence was a very serious one involving the possibility of lucrative commercial gain.  Comparable sentences such as R v. Ashton CA No 332 of 1998, 20 July 1999 and R v. Jackson CA No 244 of 1998, 9 February 1999 do not suggest that the sentence imposed in this case was manifestly excessive, even taking into account the slightly moderating factor that the proposed importation was abandoned before it was carried out.  The sentence was within the range suggested by defence counsel at trial.

The applicant has not demonstrated any significant prospects of success and nor has he given an adequate explanation in proper form for his delay in bringing this application.  I would refuse the application.

DAVIES JA:I agree.

MACKENZIE J:  I agree.

McMURDO P: The order is that the application is refused.

‑‑‑‑‑