R. v. Bujaroski [2001] NSWCCA 403

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R. v. Bujaroski [2001] NSWCCA 403 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60059/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 6 September 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 October 2001

PARTIES : Regina - respondent Lube Bujaroski - appellant JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson JA at 1; Dowd J at 45; Smart AJ at 46

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/41/0105 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Twigg DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : G. Brady for appellant R.D. Cogswell SC for respondent/Crown SOLICITORS : J. Pappas for appellant S.E. O'Connor for respondent/Crown CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether verdict unreasonable - Whether open to jury to find that appellant knew and understood contents of document which he signed - Whether circumstantial evidence direction required - Whether consideration of parity required reduction in sentence. D. Bruce v. Williams (1989) 46 A Crim R 122. Knight v. The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 R. v. hauser (1982) 6 A Crim R 68 at 71 CASES CITED: Rogerson (1992) 65 A Crim R 530 at 545 Postiglione v. The Queen (1996-7) 189 CLR 295 at 301 R. v. De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 Shepherd v. The Queen (1989-1990) 170 CLR 573 at 578 DECISION : See par.44 of judgment

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60059/01 HODGSON JA DOWD J SMART AJ

Tuesday 9th October 2001 R v. Lube BUJAROSKI

Judgment 1 HODGSON JA: On 7th December 2000, after a joint trial before Twigg DCJ and a jury lasting nine days, Marilyn Scheidel was found guilty of fraudulently misappropriating the sum of $65,000.00 in violation of the terms on which it was received by her; and the appellant was found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring this felony. 2 On 21st January 2001, the trial judge sentenced Ms. Scheidel to imprisonment for two years, with eighteen months non-parole period, and the appellant to three years' imprisonment with two years three months non-parole period, both to be served by way of periodic detention. 3 We are dealing with an appeal by the appellant against his conviction, and an application by him for leave to appeal against the sentence. 4 Before considering the grounds of appeal and submissions, it is convenient to outline certain undisputed facts relevant to the questions that we have to decide. 5 Prior to 31st May 1996, the appellant had negotiated with one Paul Aslemoski for a loan of $65,000.00. The appellant's co-accused Ms. Scheidel was a solicitor who participated in the transaction on behalf of the appellant. Another solicitor Malcolm Hansen acted on behalf of Mr. Aslemoski. 6 At about 11am on 31st May 1996, the appellant saw Ms. Scheidel at her office in relation to the transaction, and subsequently on the same day, Ms. Scheidel drew a document for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the lender in relation to the transaction. This document was in the following terms: DEED OF GUARANTEE This deed of guarantee is made on the 31 day of May 1996 BETWEEN LUBE BUJAROSKI AND PAUL ASLEMOSKI. Lube Bujaroski hereby agrees to guarantee to pay Paul Aslemoski that the sum of $65,000.00 being funds provided by Paul Aslemoski to Lube Bujaroski for the purposes of investment. Such funds will remain in Lube Bujaroskis Solicitors Trust Account. Lube Bujaroski also agrees to pay Paul Aslemoski the sum of $10,000.00 as payment to Paul Aslemoski for providing the funds to Lube Bujaroski. It is further agreed that the $10,000.00 will also be placed in the Solicitors Trust Account. The above funds being $75,000.00 will not be released from the Trust Account unless Lube Bujaroski has an acceptable Bank Letter of Credit. The total funds will be released to Paul Aslemoski at the end of the four (4) week period.