R v Kuroz [2020] NSWDC 427

R v Kuroz [2020] NSWDC 427

The accused failed to prove the mental illness defence because his reported manic and psychotic symptoms were rejected as unreliable and concocted, the court preferred Professor Greenberg's evidence, and the intercepts showed rational, profit-driven drug dealing and awareness of wrongfulness. Counts 2 and 3 were proved by admissions. Count 1 was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the intercepted communications and later supplies supported the inference that the accused and at least one co-conspirator intended the one kilogram MDMA agreement to be carried into effect. Count 4 was not proved because the alleged first supply could not be inferred beyond reasonable doubt, but the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Judge Alone Trial on Indictment / Verdict and Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The accused was found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3, not guilty of count 4, and guilty of two statutory alternative offences to count 4; convictions were entered.
Legal Topics
['judge Alone Trial' 'mental Illness Defence' 'drug Supply' 'conspiracy to Possess Prohibited Drug for Supply' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'alternative Verdicts' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['judge Alone Trial' 'mental Illness Defence' 'drug Supply' 'conspiracy to Possess Prohibited Drug for Supply' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'alternative Verdicts' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Judge Alone Trial on Indictment / Verdict and Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused established on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of the offending, he was labouring under a defect of reason owing to a disease of the mind so as not to know what he was doing was wrong.' 'Whether, for count 1, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of making the agreement the accused and at least one other party intended that the objective of the agreement would be carried into effect.' 'Whether, for count 4, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused supplied a prohibited drug on three or more separate occasions within the requisite 30 day period.' 'If count 4 was not proved, whether statutory alternative supply offences were established under section 25A(4) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused failed to prove the mental illness defence because his reported manic and psychotic symptoms were rejected as unreliable and concocted, the court preferred Professor Greenberg's evidence, and the intercepts showed rational, profit-driven drug dealing and awareness of wrongfulness. Counts 2 and 3 were proved by admissions. Count 1 was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the intercepted communications and later supplies supported the inference that the accused and at least one co-conspirator intended the one kilogram MDMA agreement to be carried into effect. Count 4 was not proved because the alleged first supply could not be inferred beyond reasonable doubt, but the...

Court Disposition

The accused was found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3, not guilty of count 4, and guilty of two statutory alternative offences to count 4; convictions were entered.

Orders

  • ['That the accused is found guilty of counts 1, 2, and 3 on the indictment.' 'That the accused is found not guilty of count 4 on the indictment.' 'That the accused is found guilty of two statutory alternative offences to count 4 pursuant to section 25A(4) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), namely the...