Legal Research
Cases
Hanna v R

Hanna v R

Case [2023] NSWCCA 182 26 July 2023

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Criminal Liability

Inconsistency in Verdicts

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v R [2023] NSWCCA 182
Hearing dates: 10 July 2023
Decision date: 26 July 2023
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Yehia J at [106];
Weinstein J at [107]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal – appeal against conviction – applicant stood trial on nine counts of sexual offending in respect of the same complainant many years ago – jury returned three guilty and six not guilty verdicts – whether convictions should be set aside on the basis of inconsistency – where there was a ready explanation for not guilty verdicts, in light of unclear evidence of complainant’s age at the time – whether convictions were unreasonable – various inconsistencies in evidence – whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of applicant’s guilt – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C, 61H, 61HA, 61M, 77, 80AE, 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 159, 293, 294
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AJ v R [2022] NSWCCA 136
Chidian v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432; [1991] HCA 4
Collins v R [2020] NSWCCA 198
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; 96 ALJR 728
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Gayle (2019) 100 NSWLR 155; [2019] NSWCA 172
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
NW v R [2023] NSWCCA 134
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
TK v R (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
Walker v R [2019] NSWCCA 4

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Abdallah Hanna (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Stratton SC and P Kondich (Applicant)
E Nicholson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
King & York Lawyers (Applicant)
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/00343256
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

18 May 2022

Before:

Beckett DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/00343256

JUDGMENT

LEEMING JA: Mr Abdallah Hanna seeks leave to appeal, pursuant to s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), from his convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3 of an indictment following his trial in the District Court constituted by a Judge and jury of 12. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on counts 4-9.
The indictment charged the applicant with committing acts of indecency…

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 Hanna v R

Details

AGLC: Hanna v R [2023] NSWCCA 182
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 182
Decision Date: 26 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hanna v R, the applicant, Hanna, stood trial on nine counts of sexual offences related to a single complainant from many years ago. The jury delivered a verdict of guilty on three counts and not guilty on the other six. Hanna appealed against his conviction, arguing that the guilty verdicts should be set aside due to inconsistency, as there was a ready explanation for the not guilty verdicts given the unclear evidence regarding the complainant's age at the time of the offences. The court was required to determine whether the convictions were unreasonable and whether the inconsistencies in the evidence allowed the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Hanna's guilt.

The court considered the inconsistencies in the evidence and the explanations provided for the not guilty verdicts. The court held that the evidence, though inconsistent, was sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Hanna's guilt on the three counts. The court found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Hanna was guilty on the three counts based on the evidence presented, even if there were inconsistencies. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that juries are entitled to assess the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions, even in the face of inconsistencies. The court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Hanna's guilt on the three counts, and thus the convictions were not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

There were no additional orders made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the convictions.

Orders