Ahmed v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 260

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Ahmed v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCCA 260

Hearing Date(s): 24 September 2012

Decision Date: 10 December 2012

Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Hidden J at [2]
Adamson J at [3]

Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Order that the appeal be dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty - whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by the trial judge directing the jury that they were prohibited from returning different verdicts in respect of two counts on the indictment - whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to facts which gave rise to being an accessory after the fact

Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900
- Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited: - M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
- Chen v R [2010] NSWCCA 224
- MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
- Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28; 200 CLR 234
- Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40; 217 CLR 1
- FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Bilal Ahmed (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
A Francis (Applicant)
E Balodis (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Bannister Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/133875

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Finnane DCJ

- Date of Decision: 31 January 2011

- Court File Number(s): 2010/133875

JUDGMENT

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Adamson J.
HIDDEN J: I agree with Adamson J.
ADAMSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his convictions following a trial by jury conducted by Finnane DCJ for the offences of firing a firearm in a public place contrary to s 93G(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (the first count) and unlawful possession of a firearm contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (the second count).

The facts

On 28 May 2010 in the evening, at about 10.25 pm, two police officers in an unmarked car on Punchbowl Road near the intersection of Waratah Street, Punchbowl heard three or four gunshots. The noise appeared to come from Waratah Street. A few seconds later, the police officers saw a car coming out of Waratah Street at faster than the normal speed for that road. The car braked suddenly at the corner of Waratah Street and Punchbowl Road before turning left and driving along Punchbowl Road. The police followed the car and observed that it stopped at the intersection with Defoe Street and then turned right into Defoe Street at speed without indicating. The police officers activated the siren and flashed the headlights but the car did not stop until it reached the driveway of the applicant's house, which was a few streets away.
The applicant was the driver of the car, a Toyota Corolla, which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ahmed v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ahmed v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 260
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 260
Decision Date: 10 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was brought by the appellant, Ahmed, against the decision of the trial court. The appellant was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to a murder and of possessing a firearm. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether, based on the entire body of evidence presented, it was open to the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charges. The appellant contested the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had improperly directed the jury that they were not permitted to return differing verdicts on the two counts of the indictment. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the facts that could establish him as an accessory after the fact.

The court examined the arguments raised by the appellant. It determined that the trial judge's direction to the jury did not constitute an error that would undermine the safety of the verdicts. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the appellant was guilty of both charges. The court also concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice caused by the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding differing verdicts. The court further held that the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the facts that could establish the appellant as an accessory after the fact were accurate and did not lead to any misdirection. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld.

Orders