Ahmad v The Queen

[2005] HCATrans 67

[2005] HCATrans 067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P42 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

SYED REDZA FAROUK AHMAD

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 MARCH 2005, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant was convicted of various offences of burglary, unlawful detention, and demanding money with intent to extort without reasonable cause.  The offences were committed in company.  The victims were Mr Foo, Mrs Choo and their family. 

The applicant appealed to the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal on two grounds:

(a)that the trial judge erred in admitting an audio recorded conversation on 16 December 1997 between three police officers and the applicant;

(b)that the trial judge erred in ruling that the Crown was not obliged to call or make available as a witness a man called D'Archangelo. 

The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed that the conversation was inadmissible, but found that there was no miscarriage of justice.  The recording linked the applicant with the premises where Mrs Choo was taken and detained.  However, there was much other evidence linking the applicant with those premises, where he lived, and with his involvement in the crime.  [AB 168[35]-[36]]

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the failure to call D'Archangelo did not cause a miscarriage of justice because of the weight of evidence against the applicant. 

The applicant's special leave application repeats those two grounds.  A further ground is that the Court of Criminal Appeal did not consider whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury about the selectivity of the audio recording caused a miscarriage of justice.

All the grounds of appeal must fail if the Court of Criminal Appeal's perception of the strength of the Crown case is correct.  The applicant has not demonstrated any error in that respect. 

There are insufficient prospects of success to justify a grant of special leave. 

The application is dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED