ALIKHANI -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 55

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 55
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:12/1998	Heard:	9 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J IPP J OWEN J	Delivered:	7/03/01
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MOJTABI ALIKHANI THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Wilful murder Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory Claim of jury bias on ground of religion Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Wilful murder Whether strict security life imprisonment justified
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	R v Ford [1989] QB 868 Garrett v The Queen [1999] WASCA 169 Salehi v The Queen [1999] WASCA 279 Williams v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960674; 26 November 1996

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ALIKHANI -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 55 CORAM : KENNEDY J

IPP J

OWEN J

HEARD : 9 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 12 of 1998

CCA 13 of 1998

BETWEEN : MOJTABI ALIKHANI

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Wilful murder - Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - Claim of jury bias on ground of religion

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Wilful murder - Whether strict security life imprisonment justified

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

R v Ford [1989] QB 868

Case(s) also cited:

Garrett v The Queen [1999] WASCA 169
Salehi v The Queen [1999] WASCA 279
Williams v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960674; 26 November 1996

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J : The applicant was charged in the Supreme Court with aggravated burglary, contrary to s 401 of the Criminal Code, and with the wilful murder of Tatiana Semenovna Reynolds, contrary to s 278 of the Code. On 29 January 1998, the applicant was convicted by a jury on both counts. He was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for the offence of aggravated burglary and to strict security life imprisonment for the offence of wilful murder, with respect to which the learned trial Judge set a minimum period of 20 years which the applicant must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

2 The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for wilful murder and against his sentence for that offence.

3 The proposed grounds of appeal in relation to the applicant's conviction for wilful murder are to be extracted from a number of documents. They are:

(i) The conviction was contrary to the evidence and to the weight of the evidence.

(ii) At the time of his trial he was on…

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 Alikhani v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Alikhani v The Queen [2001] WASCA 55
Case: [2001] WASCA 55
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Alikhani v The Queen, the respondent, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, sought leave to appeal against both the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant had been convicted of wilful murder and sentenced to strict security life imprisonment. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appeal against conviction and sentence should proceed. The appellant argued that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to alleged jury bias based on religion. Additionally, the respondent contended that the sentence of strict security life imprisonment was justified given the gravity of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in denying the appellant's application to discharge the jury on the basis of alleged bias. The court had to examine the evidence and circumstances surrounding the trial to ascertain if the jury's impartiality was compromised. A secondary issue involved the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed, particularly whether strict security life imprisonment was warranted under the circumstances of the offence.

The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the trial judge's decision to reject the application to discharge the jury. The evidence presented did not support the claim of jury bias. Regarding the sentence, the court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing strict security life imprisonment, considering the heinous nature of the crime. The court was satisfied that the sentence was proportionate and justified in the context of the appellant's actions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal against both the conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence 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.