Legal Research
Cases
Haidari v R

Haidari v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 126 1 June 2015

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Haidari v R [2015] NSWCCA 126
Hearing dates: 3 February 2015
Decision date: 01 June 2015
Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
Johnson J at [2];
Hall J at [100]
Decision:
1. Time extended to 23 October 2014 for the Appellant to file a Notice of Appeal.
2. Leave refused under Rule 4 Criminal Appeal Rules to rely upon Ground 1.
3. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted of riot at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre - identification of Appellant by client service officer employed at the Centre - identification partly from video footage of incident - whether officer’s evidence was inadmissible as opinion evidence - no objection taken to evidence at trial - held was evidence of fact and not opinion - no miscarriage of justice demonstrated - Rule 4 Criminal Appeal Rules - leave refused - whether verdict unreasonable - challenge to reliability of identification evidence - verdict not unreasonable - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Rules
Cases Cited: Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40; 217 CLR 1
Dodds v R [2009] NSWCCA 78; 194 A Crim R 408
FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182
Geitz v R [2013] NSWCCA 289
Gonzales v R [2007] NSWCCA 321; 178 A Crim R 232
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 363; 180 A Crim R 267
Parhizkar v R [2014] NSWCCA 240
Picken v R [2007] NSWCCA 319
R v Abusafiah (1991) 24 NSWLR 531
R v Ali; R V Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871
R v Beattie [2001] NSWCCA 502; 127 A Crim R 250
R v Drollett [2005] NSWCCA 356
R v FDP [2008] NSWCCA 317; 74 NSWLR 645
R v Marsh [2005] NSWCCA 331
R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97; 145 A Crim R 304
R v Moussa [2001] NSWCCA 427; 125 A Crim R 505
R v Smith [1999] NSWCCA 317; 47 NSWLR 419
R v Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 193
Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; 49 NSWLR 262
Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
Tekely v R [2007] NSWCCA 75
WC v R [2015] NSWCCA 52
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ali Haidari (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms A Francis (Appellant)
Mr G Farmer SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Appellant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/12243
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Citation:

R v Ali; R V Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871 (sentence)

Date of Decision:

17…

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 Haidari v R

Details

AGLC: Haidari v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 126
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 126
Decision Date: 01 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was brought by the appellant who was convicted for his involvement in a riot that occurred at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. The appellant sought to challenge his conviction on the basis that the identification evidence provided by a client service officer was inadmissible as opinion evidence. The officer's identification was partly based on video footage of the incident. The High Court of Australia considered the appeal and determined that the officer's evidence was not opinion evidence, but rather evidence of fact. The court held that the evidence was admissible and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the officer's evidence was admissible as opinion evidence or as evidence of fact. The appellant argued that the officer's identification was based on an opinion formed by the officer, and therefore should have been excluded as opinion evidence. However, the court found that the officer's evidence was not opinion evidence, but rather evidence of fact. The court held that the officer's identification was based on the officer's observations of the appellant during the riot, and that the video footage was merely a corroborative tool. The court found that the evidence was admissible and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature of the officer's evidence and the circumstances in which it was given. The court noted that the officer had been employed at the detention centre for a number of years and had extensive experience in identifying individuals. The court found that the officer's evidence was reliable and that there was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the identification. The court also considered the circumstances of the riot and found that the officer's identification was not influenced by any external factors. The court held that the evidence was admissible and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The court also considered the challenge to the reliability of the identification evidence. The appellant argued that the identification evidence was unreliable because the officer had only seen the appellant for a brief period of time and in poor lighting conditions. However, the court found that the officer's identification was reliable and that there was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the identification. The court held that the evidence was admissible and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders