Legal Research
Cases
Jafary v R

Jafary v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 243 29 October 2018

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: Jafary v R [2018] NSWCCA 243
Hearing dates: 10 October 2018
Decision date: 29 October 2018
Before: Leeming JA; Walton J; Wilson J
Decision:
1. Extend time to appeal to 29 June 2018.

2. Grant leave to appeal.
3. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – appellant charged with seven counts of sexual offences – jury returned verdicts of guilty on two counts and not guilty on remaining five – whether jury’s verdicts were inconsistent – whether rational explanation for acquittals – whether complainant’s evidence incapable of sustaining convictions – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(2), 61N, 66C(3)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b), 6(1)
Cases Cited: MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 38; [2016] HCA 35
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v Stone, unreported, 13 December 1954
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
TK v R (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Samad Ali Jafary (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I McLachlan (Appellant)
E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Jessica Caligiore (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/165091
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 March 2016

Before:

Norrish QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/165091

Judgment

THE COURT: Mr Samad Ali Jafary was tried in the District Court at Sydney on an indictment that charged him with seven counts of sexual offences against a minor. Counts 1, 2 and 5 alleged indecent assault on a person under the age of 16 years contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), counts 3, 6 and 7 alleged sexual intercourse with a person above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years contrary to s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act, and count 4 alleged that he incited a person under the age of 16 years to an act of indecency with himself contrary to s 61N of the Crimes Act. He pleaded not guilty to each count. On 24 March 2016, he was found guilty by a jury of counts 2 and 5, and not guilty of the other counts.
His Honour Judge Norrish QC sentenced Mr Jafary, on 17 June 2016, to a total period of one year and nine months with a non-parole period of nine months, backdated to 7 November 2015 (a date on which he had been refused bail in relation to other matters). The non-parole period expired on 6 August 2016.
Mr Jafary now seeks leave pursuant to s…

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 Jafary v R

Details

AGLC: Jafary v R [2018] NSWCCA 243
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 243
Decision Date: 29 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jafary, was convicted by a jury on two counts of sexual offences and acquitted on five other counts. Jafary appealed against his conviction, contending that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent. The appeal raised questions about the consistency of the jury's verdicts, the existence of a rational explanation for the acquittals, and whether the complainant's evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were rational and whether the evidence provided was capable of sustaining the convictions.

The court examined the evidence and the consistency of the jury's verdicts. It noted that the jury had acquitted the appellant on five counts despite finding him guilty on two other counts, which could suggest a rational basis for the acquittals. The court also considered the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence and whether it was sufficient to sustain the convictions on the two counts where the appellant was found guilty. The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were rational and that the evidence was capable of sustaining the convictions on the two counts. The appeal was dismissed as the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the jury's verdicts. The court found that the jury's decision was rational and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions on the two counts. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court's decision highlights the importance of the jury's role in assessing the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases. The court's decision also underscores the need for careful consideration of the consistency of jury verdicts and the rational basis for acquittals.

Orders