R v Tsokos [2005] NSWCCA 216

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Tsokos [2005] NSWCCA 216

HEARING DATE(S): 7 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; James J at 39; Howie J at 40

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CASES CITED: Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

PARTIES: Regina v Spiro Tsokos

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/406

G. Rowling (Crown) COUNSEL: G. Heathcote (Appellant)

S. Kavanagh (Crown) SOLICITORS: J.P. Ryan (Appellant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/1090

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2005/406

STUDDERT J JAMES J HOWIE J

Thursday 16 June 2005 REGINA v SPIRO TSOKOS Judgment 1 STUDDERT J: The appellant, Spiro Tsokos, stood trial in May 2004 charged with supply of a prohibited drug at Chiswick on 18 December 2002. The drug was methylamphetamine, and the amount was 302.4 grams, that being an amount not less than the commercial quantity. The appellant was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years, with a non parole period of two years nine months. 2 The appellant appeals against his conviction. There is no appeal against sentence. 3 Before addressing the grounds of appeal, I propose in brief to outline the evidence. After surveillance, police officers stopped a car in which the appellant was a front seat passenger and of which the alleged co-offender was the driver. A bag containing a clear plastic heat-sealed bag was found on the floor in the area of the front passenger's seat, and this bag contained 302.4 grams of methylamphetamine. The appellant denied knowledge of the content of the bag. The car was owned by the alleged co-offender's girlfriend. 4 The Crown case was that the appellant and the alleged co-offender were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise to supply the methylamphetamine to two men identified in the intercepted telephone conversations that took place between the alleged co-offender and those two men. Additionally, the Crown relied on the content of a number of intercepted conversations between the appellant and the alleged co-offender, particularly those occurring between 15 and 18 December 2002. There was also evidence of observations of the appellant and of the alleged co-offender in the time leading up to discovery of the drugs in the car. 5 The appellant gave evidence. He denied any involvement in the supply and denied any knowledge of the presence of the drug in the car. The driver of the car was, according to the appellant, a friend of some six years standing, to whom he had lent money and who was selling materials on commission for the appellant in a business in which the appellant was engaged. In relation to the intercepted telephone conversations to the extent that they involved the appellant, his case was that there was an innocent explanation for them. In particular, a telephone call of 15 December 2002 related not to drugs but to a legitimate transaction concerning the sale of mouldings. 6 At no time did the appellant make any admission of guilt, either prior to the trial or during the giving of his evidence. The alleged co-offender pleaded guilty to the supply charge, and evidence of that plea was before the jury at the appellant's trial. 7 This brings me to the grounds of appeal, which are three in number.