Legal Research
Cases
Alameddine v The Queen

Alameddine v The Queen

Case [2012] NSWCCA 63 27 April 2012

Conviction

Evidence

DNA

Incapacity to Inculpate

Failure to Answer Jury Question

Conviction Quashed

New Trial Ordered

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Alameddine v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCCA 63

Hearing Date(s): 12 March 2012

Decision Date: 27 April 2012

Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Grove AJ at [3]

Decision:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Convictions and sentences quashed.
3. New trial ordered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Conviction for armed robbery - evidence - clothing - DNA - time disconnect - incapacity to inculpate - similarly cartridge not in possession of appellant - failure to answer jury question - available admissible evidence - conviction quashed and new trial ordered

Legislation Cited: Evidence Act
Jury Act

Cases Cited: Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44
Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179
Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 71 CLR 432
Halmi v R [2008] NSWCCA 259
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
Mahmood v State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
Phillips v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 303
R v Hickey (2002) 137 A Crim R 62
R v McCormack (1986) 85 A Crim R 445
R v Salama [1999] NSWCCA 105
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Stubley v Western Australia (2011) 85 ALJR 435
The Queen v Chamberlain (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Mohamed Alameddine (Appellant)
Crown

Representation

- Counsel: G Bashir (Appellant)
P Ingram SC (Crown)

- Solicitors: Legal Aid Commission (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2009/4562

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Colefax DCJ

- Date of Decision: 11 February 2011

- Court File Number(s): 2009/45652

JUDGMENT

McClellan CJ at CL: I agree with Grove AJ.
Johnson J: I agree with Grove AJ.
Grove AJ: The appellant was convicted on two counts of aggravated armed robbery after a trial at Parramatta District Court before Colefax DCJ and a jury. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years with a non-parole period of seven years. These were directed to commence on 29 September 2013 which date was 12 months prior to the expiry of a non-parole period for other offences dealt with at Sydney District Court on 11 June 2010.
The central issue at trial was the identity of the appellant as one of the offenders who robbed two Armaguard security officers at about 12:50 pm on 8 September 2008 as they were leaving a Coles supermarket at Guildford. Over $140,000 in cash was taken as well as, from each officer, a loaded .38 calibre firearm. Count one of the indictment charged robbery of one officer (Morris) of cash and a firearm whilst count two charged robbery of the firearm from the other officer (Czlazko).
At about 4:30 pm on Sunday 7 September 2008 the owner of a red Nissan Pulsar, registered…

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 Alameddine v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Alameddine v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 63
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 63
Decision Date: 27 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against conviction for armed robbery by the appellant. The primary issue was whether the conviction could be sustained based on the available evidence, particularly concerning the appellant's involvement and the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence. The court had to consider the reliability of DNA evidence found on clothing, the significance of a time disconnect in the appellant's alibi, and the appellant's inability to directly inculpate himself due to his incapacity to communicate effectively with the jury.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of DNA evidence found on clothing, the sufficiency of the time disconnect to undermine the appellant's alibi, and the implications of the appellant's inability to communicate effectively with the jury. The court also had to determine whether the failure to answer a jury question about a similarly cartridge not in the appellant's possession was an oversight or a deliberate strategy, and whether this omission affected the fairness of the trial.

The court found that the evidence, particularly the DNA on clothing and the time disconnect, was not sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the appellant's incapacity to inculpate himself and noted the failure to answer the jury question about the similarly cartridge. Given these factors, the court concluded that the conviction was unsafe and unreliable, leading to the quashing of the conviction and the ordering of a new trial. The court emphasised the need for a thorough and fair trial, where all available evidence is considered, and the rights of the accused are protected.

Orders