Hasapis v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 216

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Hasapis v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 216

Hearing Date(s): 8/09/2014

Decision Date: 15 October 2014

Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Fullerton J at [2];
Hamill J at [25]

Decision:
Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - robbery in company - whether verdict is unreasonable having regard to the nature and quality of the evidence

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 12
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)

Cases Cited: Kurdi v R [2011] NSWCCA 179
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487; 76 A Crim R 213
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606; 135 A Crim R 361
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; 30 A Crim R 315
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400; 209 A Crim R 433

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Daniel Hasapis (Appellant)
The Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
R Munro (Appellant)
N Williams (Crown)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
O'Brien Solicitors (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2011/221061

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Craigie DCJ

- Date of Decision: 02 November 2012

- Court File Number(s): 2011/221061

JUDGMENT

MACFARLAN JA: Based on my independent assessment of the evidence at the trial I agree that, for the reasons given by Fullerton J, the appeal should be dismissed.
FULLERTON J: On 2 November 2012 the appellant was convicted after trial of one count of robbery in company laid contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW). The indictment named the appellant's stepbrother, Michael El Soussi, and BW, a friend of his aged 13, as the people with whom he was in company when the complainant (Arvind Teluchina-Appadu) was robbed of his mobile telephone whilst he was waiting at a bus shelter in Ermington at approximately 10.45pm on 1 July 2011.
On 26 April 2013 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 18 months which was suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW).
The appellant challenges his conviction under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) on the sole ground that the verdict is unreasonable having regard to the nature and quality of the evidence.
There is no application for leave to appeal against sentence.
The principles to be applied in determining an appeal pursuant to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act are well settled and can be shortly stated. This Court is obliged to make an independent assessment of the evidence led at trial, both as to its efficacy and its quality, in order to determine whether, notwithstanding the fact that there is evidence upon which a jury might convict, that it would nonetheless be dangerous in all the circumstances to allow the verdict of guilty to stand (see M…

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 Hasapis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hasapis v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 216
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date: 15 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the defendant, Hasapis, against his conviction for robbery in company was heard by the High Court. The defendant was found guilty of robbing a man of his watch at knife-point while in the company of another individual, who was acquitted. The defendant contested the verdict on the basis that it was unreasonable given the evidence presented. The appeal hinged on the reliability of the identification evidence and the overall quality of the prosecution's case.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This involved assessing the credibility of the identification evidence and evaluating whether the evidence as a whole was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also considered whether the trial judge had adequately addressed the improbability of the defendant's presence at the scene given his alibi. These issues were critical in deciding whether the verdict was unreasonable.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the evidence and was not persuaded that the verdict was unreasonable. The identification evidence, though not perfect, was deemed reliable enough to support the conviction when considered alongside other evidence. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in law and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the defendant's conviction.

Orders