Cuzman v R; Bucataru v R [2014] NSWCCA 222

Cuzman v R; Bucataru v R [2014] NSWCCA 222

The convictions on Count 1 could not stand because the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance being transported was heroin, and without that proof there was no evidence establishing that the substance was not less than a commercial quantity of heroin or any other illegal drug. However, the jury's verdict necessarily demonstrated satisfaction of facts proving the alternative Count 2: the evidence permitted findings beyond reasonable doubt that each applicant knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug in at least an indictable quantity. The convictions on Count 4 were confirmed because no independent challenge to that count succeeded once Count 2 was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction on Count 1 allowed; guilty verdicts on Count 1 set aside; convictions substituted on Count 2; convictions on Count 4 confirmed; sentences quashed; proceedings remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing on Counts 2 and 4.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Take Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'commercial Quantity of Heroin' 'participating in a Criminal Group' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'substitution of Verdict' 're Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['knowingly Take Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'commercial Quantity of Heroin' 'participating in a Criminal Group' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'substitution of Verdict' 're Sentencing']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts of guilty on Count 1 were unreasonable and unable to be supported having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the substance supplied was not less than a commercial quantity of heroin.' 'Whether verdicts of guilty on the alternative Count 2 could be substituted under s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the evidence of Ms Suto, together with intercepted communications and other evidence, supported findings that the applicants knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug.' 'Whether the convictions on Count 4 should stand if convictions were substituted on Count 2.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on Count 1 could not stand because the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance being transported was heroin, and without that proof there was no evidence establishing that the substance was not less than a commercial quantity of heroin or any other illegal drug. However, the jury's verdict necessarily demonstrated satisfaction of facts proving the alternative Count 2: the evidence permitted findings beyond reasonable doubt that each applicant knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug in at least an indictable quantity. The convictions on Count 4 were confirmed because no independent challenge to that count succeeded once Count 2 was...

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction on Count 1 allowed; guilty verdicts on Count 1 set aside; convictions substituted on Count 2; convictions on Count 4 confirmed; sentences quashed; proceedings remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing on Counts 2 and 4.

Orders

  • ['Christian Cuzman: The application for leave to appeal against conviction in respect of Count 1 on the indictment is allowed and the verdict of guilty in respect of that offence entered 23 October 2012 is set aside.' 'Christian Cuzman: In lieu thereof Christian Cuzman is convicted of the offence in Count 2 on the...