Legal Research
Cases
Feili v R

Feili v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 43 26 March 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Feili v R [2015] NSWCCA 43
Hearing dates: 16 February 2015
Decision date: 26 March 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Johnson J at [1];
Davies J at [1]
Decision:
Appeal against conviction dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted of riot - Appellant asleep for parts of trial - whether trial judge erred in finding Appellant fit to be tried - relevant principles - capacity of accused to understand evidence at trial and nature and course of criminal proceedings - ameliorative steps available -legal representatives able to explain proceedings and important evidence - no error demonstrated in trial judge’s approach - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Clarkson v R [2007] NSWCCA 70; 171 A Crim R 1
Ebataringa and Anor v Deland and Ors [1998] HCA 62; 194 CLR 444
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Kesavarajah v The Queen [1994] HCA 41; 181 CLR 230
Kunnath v The State [1993] 4 All ER 30
Ngatayi v The Queen [1980] HCA 18; 147 CLR 1
R v Ali; R v Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871
R v Feili [2013] NSWSC 492
R v Lee Kun [1916] 1 KB 337
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
R v Rivkin [2004] NSWCCA 7; 59 NSWLR 284
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Taleb Feili (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Trevallion (Appellant)
Mr G Farmer SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Archbold Legal (Appellant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/146355
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Crime

Citation:

R v Feili [2013] NSWSC 492 (finding of fitness to be tried)

Date of Decision:

13 March 2013

Before:

R A Hulme J

File Number(s):

2011/146355

Judgment

THE COURT: The Appellant, Taleb Feili, appeals against his conviction on 17 April 2013 for an offence of riot under s.93B Crimes Act 1900 following a trial before RA Hulme J and a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of one year and 10 months commencing on 10 August 2012 and expiring on 9 June 2014, with a balance of term of one year and two months commencing on 10 June 2014 and expiring on 9 August 2015. The sentencing Judge directed that the Appellant be released on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 9 June 2014.
The appeal to this Court challenges the Appellant’s conviction. No ground of appeal is directed to sentence.

Grounds of Appeal

The grounds of appeal relate to an issue which arose during the trial concerning the fitness of the Appellant to…

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 Feili v R

Details

AGLC: Feili v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 43
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 43
Decision Date: 26 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Feili, appealed against his conviction for participating in a riot. The case was heard in the highest court of Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in determining that the appellant was fit to be tried, given that he was asleep during parts of the trial. This required the court to consider the principles that guide the assessment of an accused's fitness to stand trial, focusing on the capacity of the accused to understand the evidence and the proceedings.

The court examined whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles, including the accused's ability to comprehend the evidence and the nature and course of the criminal proceedings. The court noted that there were ameliorative steps available to assist the accused, such as legal representatives explaining the proceedings and important evidence. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered these factors and had not erred in concluding that the appellant was fit to be tried. The court was satisfied that the trial judge's approach was reasonable and that the appellant's right to a fair trial was not prejudiced.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal. The appellant's conviction for participating in a riot was upheld. The court's decision confirmed that the trial judge had correctly assessed the appellant's fitness to stand trial, taking into account all relevant factors and ensuring the appellant's right to a fair trial was maintained. The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and the conviction remained in place.

Orders