Sasho Gorgievski Case Summary

Sasho Gorgievski ( the accused) was arrested on 29 August 2014 on the basis of possessing methylamphetamine (meth) and an intent to supply or sell the drug. On 17 August 2015 the accused appeared at the District Court of Western Australia (courtroom 3.1 at 10am). The prosecutor, the state of Western Australia, is represented by Mr Gaurl (the prosecution). The accused is defended by Mr Fort (the defence). Juris Levy is responsible for making the judgment of this case. The following analyses the different roles and duties performed during the trial of issues on 17 August. This report also comments on the proceedings and a potential reason of appeal. The sentencing of this case is still to be decided and is currently scheduled for 14 October

During the trial I assumed he was given bail, as the level of security did not seem as high as it might be, should he be in custody. Specifically, When Judge Levy suggested to adjourn for a lunch break, he advised the accused that he was allowed to go for in the public area, as there was no jury and all witnesses were interviewed. The decision of bail can be made on the basis that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, on the basis of the crime, and on the best interest of the state’s resources. Considering the burden of proof was on the Defense (as discussed in the ‘statement of the defense’ below), and that many believe ‘certain types of offenders such as drug dealers (…) ought to be denied bail in all circumstances’ , it is surprising that Judge Levy came to this

The defendant is physically closer to the accused than the prosecutor. They however did not have any discussion during the trial; the only time I observed them discussing was when obtaining the evidence in chief from the accused. The defendant stood up whenever he was speaking.

The prosecution was sitting on the right side when facing Judge Levy. A junior lawyer was sitting on a separate table behind him. They were both close enough to have a discussion and I observed the prosecution requesting the junior lawyer to do some research or get clarifications on few points. The prosecution also stood up whenever making a point.

The witness box was on the far right. During the trial two witnesses were called, including a police officer from the Bunbury police station and a detective for the organised crime squad. Both chose to swear oath before giving their statement. The first witness showed a video of the arrest on 29 August 2014 and was asked to comment on the different actions and statements made during the video. Judge Levy confirmed the video footage was labeled exhibit 3. The second witness was mainly asked about his expertise and knowledge of meth which he developed through his career. I understand he is the individual who ordered the police station to press charge on the day of the arrest. For both witnesses, the evidence in chief was obtained by The prosecution and the cross examination by the defendant. The witnesses were not