Regina v Milos Zajac [2001] NSWCCA 361

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Milos Zajac [2001] NSWCCA 361 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60262/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 September 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 September 2001

PARTIES : Regina Milos Zajac JUDGMENT OF : Sully J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/11/0649 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Goldring DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : M. C. Grogan - Crown P. R. Boulten - Applicant SOLICITORS : S. E. O'Connor - Crown Watsons - Applicant

LEGISLATION CITED : Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) CASES CITED: Lowe v The Queen [1984] 154 CLR 606 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383 DECISION : Leave to appeal granted; appeal against sentence dismissed

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60262/2000

SULLY J CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday 14 September 2001 REGINA v MILOS ZAJAC JUDGMENT

1 THE COURT: The applicant, Mr. Milos Zajac, seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of a sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon him on 2 July 2000 by his Honour Judge Goldring sitting in the Liverpool District Court.

2 On 8 November 1996 the applicant was arraigned in the District Court. He was charged with having supplied between 16 November 1994 and 21 March 1995 a prohibited drug namely cocaine. Such an offence contravenes section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of, relevantly, imprisonment for 15 years.

3 The applicant, upon arraignment, pleaded not guilty. An estimate of 3 to 4 weeks was fixed for the projected trial. The trial was listed to commence on 16 February 1998. For reasons which are not clear, the trial did not then proceed. The applicant's trial was listed, subsequently, to commence on 5 April 1999 jointly with two co-offenders named Colin and Crawley. That trial date, also, was vacated. It is not quite clear from the evidence at present available why the further trial date was vacated; although subsequent events suggest that the reason was, at least in part, a projected application for separate trials of the applicant and of his co-offender Crawley.