Ozgen v R [2021] NSWCCA 252

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ozgen v R [2021] NSWCCA 252 Hearing dates: 20 September 2021 Decision date: 03 November 2021 Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Price J at [82]; Hamill J at [83]. Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal in respect of grounds 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – appellant charged with two federal drug offences and one state drug offence – indictment signed by person authorised by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions but not authorised by NSW Director of Public Prosecutions – lack of authority in relation to state offence raised towards conclusion of trial – judge directed jury not to return verdict on state count – jury found appellant guilty on both federal counts – whether indictment and convictions a nullity – whether amendments introduced following R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; [2005] NSWCCA 2 and R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281 saved indictment – whether indictment severable – significance of power to amend a defective indictment – significance of District Court's exercise of federal jurisdiction – whether jury's verdict unreasonable – whether trial judge erred in not leaving defence that appellant did not know drugs were imported to jury – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Commonwealth Constitution, s 77(iii), 109 Commonwealth Criminal Code, ss 11.1, 11.2A, 13.4, 13.5, 307.5 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), 4K Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 15, 16(1)(i), 21, 29, 46, 126, 130 District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 166 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 25, 29 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 49(8) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 68 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15 Cases Cited: Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213; [2000] HCA 13 Bounds v R [2006] HCA 39; 80 ALJR 1380 Braysich v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 434; [2011] HCA 14 Byrnes v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 38 Christie v Permewan, Wright & Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 693; [1904] HCA 35 Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1; [2004] HCA 39 CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Formosa [2009] NSWCA 363; 261 ALR 441 CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 64 Director of Public Prosecutions v Currie; Director of Public Prosecutions v Daniels (a pseudonym) [2021] VSCA 272 FX v R; GX v R [2020] NSWCCA 189 Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23; [1989] HCA 46 JC v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2014) 87 NSWLR 320; [2014] NSWCA 228 Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265; [2012] HCA 37 Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554; [2019] HCA 21 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37 O'Reilly v Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria (1982) 153 CLR 1; [1983] HCA 47 Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 4 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 R v Cockrell [2015] QCA 73; 250 A Crim R 364 R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; [2005] NSWCCA 2 R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281 R v Swannson; R v Henry (2007) 69 NSWLR 406; [2007] NSWCCA 67 Ravarotto v The Queen [2012] VSCA 263 Re Wakim; ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511; [1999] HCA 27 Rizeq v Western Australia (2017) 262 CLR 1; [2017] HCA 23 Selim v R [2006] NSWCCA 378 Sydney Seaplanes Pty Ltd v Page [2021] NSWCA 204 Taylor v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (2019) 268 CLR 224; [2019] HCA 30 The Queen v The Justices of Kent (1873) LR 8 QB 305 Texts Cited: S Pack, "Judicial review of decisions not to prosecute" (2020) 49 Australian Bar Review 440 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mehmet Ozgen (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Woods; E Bartley (Appellant) D Staehli SC; R Glover (Respondent)