Regina v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 386

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 386 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60116/96 HEARING DATE(S) : Friday, 8 September 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 October 2000

PARTIES : The Crown Hakija Sinanovic (Appl) JUDGMENT OF : Fitzgerald JA at 1; Newman J at 23; Greg James J at 68

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 94/11/0628 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Karpin DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : W C Dawe QC (Crown) Appl in person SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor (Crown) Appl in person CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - obtaining money by deception - leave to appeal against conviction - unmeritorious appeal Crimes Act 1900 LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 CASES CITED: R v Lawrence (1981) NSWLR 122 DECISION : 1. Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60116/96 FITZGERALD JA NEWMAN J GREG JAMES J TUESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2000

REGINA v Hakija SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT

1 FITZGERALD JA: On 17 June 1994, the applicant was arraigned on two counts of dishonestly obtaining money for himself by deception contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. Pursuant to s 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, he elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury. His trial took place before Karpin DCJ from 28 November to 1 December 1995. Her Honour convicted the appellant on both counts, which were stated in the following terms in the indictment: "(1) For that he on or about 18 August 1993 at Campsie, in the State of New South Wales, dishonestly obtained for himself $10,000 by deception, namely, by falsely representing to Denis Xenos that the said $10,000 would be invested in foreign currency and would be repaid in drachma to Denis Xenos within 3 to 4 days at the rate of about 210 drachmas for each Australian dollar when, to the knowledge of the said Hakija Sinonovic, it would not. (2) Further, for that he on or about 19 August 1993 at Campsie, in the State of New South Wales, dishonestly obtained for himself $53,200 by deception, namely, by falsely representing to Denis Zenos that the said $53,200 would be invested in foreign currency and would be repaid in drachma to Denis Xenos within 3 to 4 days at the rate of about 210 drachmas for each Australian dollar when, to the knowledge of the said Hakija Sinonovic, it would not." 2 On 11 April 1996, the applicant was sentenced on the first count to imprisonment for 12 months to commence on 29 January 1996 and expire on 28 January 1997 and on the second count to imprisonment to commence on 29 January 1996 and expire on 28 March 1997. The additional term of imprisonment set by her Honour was 16 months to commence on 29 March 1997 and expire on 28 July 1998. The applicant has served the sentences imposed but is now in prison for other offences. 3 The applicant was represented before Karpin DCJ by different counsel at his trial and on his sentencing. He was not legally represented in this Court. 4 The applicant did not appeal against his conviction within the time prescribed by s 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. At the hearing of these proceedings, an attempt was made to blame some unidentified and unidentifiable registry officer who it was said told the applicant's wife to wait to appeal against his conviction until after he was sentenced. Although it was claimed that she acted on that advice, the applicant's wife did not wait until after he was sentenced but lodged an application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction on 14 March 1996, about 2 ½ months out of time. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was lodged after he was sentenced on 11 April 1996. 5 These proceedings were listed for hearing on 12 December 1997, but the applicant was not ready to proceed. The prosecution submissions were filed about a fortnight prior to that date. The hearing in this Court took place on 8 September 2000. Lengthy written submissions were received from the applicant's wife by facsimile on the previous day. Another submission was received from the applicant's wife, also by facsimile, on the morning of the hearing. 6 The "Grounds For Appeal" stated in the document sent by facsimile on 7 September were: "Denial of natural justice Abuse of process Unfair procedure Denied a fair trial and committal proceedings Prejudice and Discrimination Miscarriage of justice Unlawful arrest and procedures Malicious prosecution with intent Conspiracy and corruption Abuse of human rights Abuse of international laws Ignorance of the laws, rules and regulations Absence of factual evidence Absence of expert evidence No power to prosecute No power from judge to listen Crown conduct resulted in miscarriage of justice Defence counsel conduct resulted in miscarriage of justice Trial judge conduct resulted in miscarriage of justice Perceived bias from trial judge towards appellant Denied to exercise constitutional right to proceed with appeal before concluding sentence and parole Wrongfully, illegally and unlawfully detained in custody" 7 The further document sent by facsimile on 8 September was headed "Conspiracy and Corruption". 8 The documents sent by facsimile on 7 and 8 September contained extensive legal submissions on a variety of issues, with references to numerous cases. In addition, the "Authorities for the Appellant" were nominated as follows: "Butterworths NSW Criminal Practice and Procedures Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Prosecution Policy) Laws of Australia Halsburys Laws of Australia Criminal Law NSW (Watson, Blackmore, Hosking) Australian Constitutional Laws Chamberlain v R (1984) 51 ALR 225 Tim Anderson, Alister Dunn v R (1983) The Ananda Marga Conspiracy Case."