Chamma v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 84

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chamma v R [2025] NSWCCA 84
Hearing dates: 19 May 2025
Decision date: 04 June 2025
Before: Leeming JA and Wright J at [1];
Rigg J at [43]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal, confined to grounds 1 and 2, and otherwise refuse leave.
2. Appeal allowed on the basis of ground 2, but otherwise dismissed.
3. Quash the conviction for murder and order that there be a new trial.
4. Quash the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court on 1 September 2023.
5. List the matter before the arraignments judge at 10am on 4 July 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – whether open to jury to accept Crown case that applicant contemplated use of knife to cause death or really serious injury – verdict not unreasonable – breach of prosecution’s duty of disclosure – conceded materiality of breach – appeal allowed, conviction quashed and retrial ordered

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 82

Cases Cited:
Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 112
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
Lang v The Queen (2023) 278 CLR 323; [2023] HCA 29
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380; [2016] HCA 30
Mitchell v The King (2023) 276 CLR 299; [2023] HCA 5
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Chamma; R v Hicks (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1057
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9; 99 ALJR 676

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Samir Chamma (Applicant)
The King (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Neild SC (Applicant)
M Millward, T Abdulhak (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/319239
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2023] NSWSC 1057

Date of Decision:

19 June 2023

Before:

McNaughton J

File Number(s):

2021/319239

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Mr Samir Chamma, and his co-accused Mr John Hicks, were found guilty of the murder of Mr Warwick Hunter on 15 November 2020, following a trial in the Supreme Court constituted by judge and jury. There was no dispute that Mr Hunter had been fatally stabbed at his home that evening, and it was accepted in light of CCTV footage that Mr Chamma, Mr Hicks and one other person had called upon Mr Hunter for a few minutes shortly after 10pm. The Crown case was that Mr Hicks had fatally stabbed Mr Hunter, and that Mr Chamma was liable as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to rob Mr Hunter, having contemplated as a non-fanciful possibility that Mr Hicks might use the knife with the intention of killing or causing grievous bodily harm, and…

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 Chamma v The King

Details

AGLC: Chamma v The King [2025] NSWCCA 84
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 84
Decision Date: 04 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was heard in the High Court, with the applicant, Chamma, challenging the verdict of the jury that found him guilty of murder. The dispute centered on whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, specifically regarding the applicant's contemplation of using a knife to cause death or really serious injury. The court examined whether the jury could justifiably accept the Crown's case based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and whether the prosecution had breached its duty of disclosure. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the applicant intended to use a knife to cause serious harm or death. Additionally, the court needed to assess the impact of the prosecution's failure to disclose certain material on the fairness of the trial.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the applicant intended to use a knife to cause serious harm. However, the court also determined that the prosecution had breached its duty of disclosure by failing to provide certain material that was conceded to be of significant importance. This breach affected the fairness of the trial, leading the court to conclude that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a retrial ordered. The court emphasised the importance of the prosecution's duty to disclose all relevant material to ensure a fair trial.

Orders