Regina v Sid Zaiter [2005] NSWCCA 61

Regina v Sid Zaiter [2005] NSWCCA 61

Leave was refused because the District Court judge was entitled to find that the recorded conversations and related material were capable of proving that the applicant knowingly took part in an offer or agreement to supply a kilogram of cocaine, which was supply within the extended meaning of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The Act did not require proof of an actual completed supply, nor did it require the applicant to be a third party to another person's supply. The judge was also entitled to reject the applicant's evidence that he did not understand the charge or intend to plead guilty, and no miscarriage of justice was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S5 E Criminal Appeal Act / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Order Refusing Leave to Withdraw a Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Taking Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'extended Definition of Supply' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'large Commercial Quantity of Cocaine']
['criminal Law' 'drug Offences' 'criminal Procedure'] ['knowingly Taking Part in Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'extended Definition of Supply' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'large Commercial Quantity of Cocaine']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Under S5 E Criminal Appeal Act / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Order Refusing Leave to Withdraw a Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence was capable of proving the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of cocaine.' 'Whether the offence required proof of an actual supply of cocaine rather than supply within the extended statutory definition.' "Whether a person charged with knowingly taking part in supply must be a third party to another person's supply." 'Whether there was evidence that the supply was to be of a large commercial quantity of cocaine.' 'Whether the applicant did not understand the charge or did not intend to plead guilty to it so as to show a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the District Court judge was entitled to find that the recorded conversations and related material were capable of proving that the applicant knowingly took part in an offer or agreement to supply a kilogram of cocaine, which was supply within the extended meaning of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The Act did not require proof of an actual completed supply, nor did it require the applicant to be a third party to another person's supply. The judge was also entitled to reject the applicant's evidence that he did not understand the charge or intend to plead guilty, and no miscarriage of justice was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.']