Vacic v The Queen - [2011] NSWCCA 159

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vacic v R [2011] NSWCCA 159
Hearing dates: 1 December 2010
Decision date: 07 February 2011
Before: James J at 1, Hislop J at 2, Price J at 25
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Cases Cited: King v R [2008] NSWCCA 101; (2008) 184 A Crim R 304
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Danny Slobodan Vacic v Regina
Representation: C. Heazlewood (Appellant)
N. Norman (Crown)
Scott Hall-Johnston (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2008/1737
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-06-09 00:00:00

Before:

Conlon DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/1737

Judgment

JAMES J: I agree with Hislop J.

HISLOP J : On 31 May 2007 adjoining premises at Coniston were searched by police. In one of the premises (No 14) the police discovered a hydroponic cultivation set-up involving some 69 cannabis plants. They also discovered approximately 7 kilograms of cannabis drying in a upstairs bedroom. No 14 was owned by the appellant as were the adjoining premises, 1/12 and 2/12. The appellant and his wife lived in 2/12, 1/12 and 14 were unoccupied.

As a result of the search, the appellant was charged as follows:

"Count 1 For that he on 31 May 2007 at Coniston in the State of New South Wales did knowingly take part in the cultivation of prohibited plant, namely 69 cannabis plants, by enhanced indoor means, being a number not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that plant.

Count 2 For that he on 31 May 2007 at Coniston in the State of New South Wales did supply prohibited drug, namely cannabis."

Initially the appellant pleaded guilty to those charges. However, he gave evidence on sentence traversing his pleas, which he was then permitted to withdraw.

The appellant was arraigned before judge and jury on 31 May 2010. He entered pleas of not guilty. He represented himself at the trial. He had some pro bono assistance in respect of his defence.

The appellant did not give evidence at the trial. An edited version of the evidence he had given in the discontinued sentence proceedings wherein he advanced a defence of duress was tendered by the Crown. His wife and ex-wife were called to give evidence in his case.

The appellant's case on duress was that around June/July 2006 he was confronted in his own home by three men who threatened him with a gun and ordered him to do what he was told, that he was to allow these persons to cultivate cannabis at No 14, and he was to assist them in this regard.

The crucial issue at trial was whether the appellant had been involved in the offences whilst acting under duress. The appellant submitted that he was not guilty of either offence because the Crown had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the offences were not committed as a result of duress which caused him to act as he did.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on each count.

The…

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 Vacic v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vacic v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 159
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 159
Decision Date: 07 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vacic v The Queen involved Danny Slobodan Vacic who was charged with cultivating and supplying cannabis at Coniston. The Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales heard the appeal against Vacic's conviction on 1 December 2010 and delivered its decision on 7 February 2011. The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of financial evidence related to the appellant's bank deposits and property transactions, as well as the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of this evidence to rebut the appellant's claim of duress.

The court found that the financial evidence, including bank records and property transactions, was relevant and properly admitted to rebut the defence of duress. The court held that the jury could conclude that the appellant had received profits from the cannabis cultivation, which was inconsistent with his claim that he was acting under duress. The court also determined that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and did not require a more specific instruction regarding the financial evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the appellant's conviction should stand. The appellant's appeal was based on the grounds that the evidence of his financial affairs was inadmissible and that the trial judge failed to give proper directions to the jury regarding the use of this evidence. However, the court found that the evidence was properly admitted and that the trial judge's directions were sufficient.

Orders