Al-Hashimi v The Queen

Case [2004] WASCA 61


AL-HASHIMI -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 61



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2004] WASCA 61
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:62/200319 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:WHEELER J
MILLER J
EM HEENAN J
2/04/04
39Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:SABAH MOHAMMED HASHEM AL-HASHIMI
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Evidence
Dock identification
Admissibility of
Adequacy of trial Judge's directions in relation to
Similar fact evidence
Admissibility of
Directions in relation to

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 233(1)(a)

Case References:

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
DPP v Boardman [1975] AC 421
DPP v P [1991] 2 AC 447
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106. ,
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590. ,
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57
Markby v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 108
Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461. ,
R v Harrison (1987) 29 A Crim R 213
R v Kelly (2002) 129 A Crim R 363
R v O'Meally [No 2] [1953] VLR 30
R v Straffen [1952] 2 QB 911
R v Turnbull [1977] 1 QB 224
R v Yuille [1948] VLR 41
Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528
Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1
Tweedie v The Queen [2003] WASCA 282

Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cita and Lamaha v The Queen (2001) 120 A Crim R 307
Collard v The Queen [2000] WASCA 417
Demeter v R [1995] 2 Qd R 626
Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95
Jamal v R (2001) 182 ALR 307
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367
Mundarra Doolan Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650
R v Ampi Hungan [2000] NTSC 84
R v Boyle (1987) 34 A Crim R 202
R v Britten (1988) 51 SASR 567
R v Gee (2000) 113 A Crim R 376
R v Hennessy [2001] NSWCCA 36
R v Ilam & Ors (1999) 109 A Crim R 47
R v Kadem (2002) 129 A Crim R 304
R v Kirby [2000] NSWCCA 330
R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Smith (1999) 47 NSWLR 419
Roser v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 254
Rutu & Ladjilu v Dalla Costa (1997) 139 FLR 265
Winning v The Queen [2003] WASCA 245

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : AL-HASHIMI -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 61 CORAM : WHEELER J
    MILLER J
    EM HEENAN J
HEARD : 19…

Continue reading Al-Hashimi v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Al-Hashimi v The Queen [2004] WASCA 61
Case
[2004] WASCA 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Al-Hashimi v The Queen involved the appellant, Al-Hashimi, appealing against his conviction for various criminal offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility and impact of evidence related to a dock identification and similar fact evidence presented during the trial. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions concerning the dock identification and similar fact evidence were inadequate, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the trial judge's directions adequately addressed the probative value and potential prejudicial effect of the dock identification and similar fact evidence. The court had to consider whether the trial judge's instructions sufficiently guided the jury on how to assess this evidence, ensuring that it was not given undue weight. Additionally, the court examined whether the similar fact evidence was admissible under the common law principles governing such evidence.

The court, in its judgment, found that the trial judge's directions were appropriate and sufficiently detailed to allow the jury to properly assess the dock identification and similar fact evidence. The court concluded that the judge had not erred in admitting the evidence, and the jury was adequately instructed on its limited application. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court held that the trial judge's directions were sufficient to prevent any undue prejudice from the evidence and that the evidence was relevant and admissible under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.