Legal Research
Cases
Jubraeel v R

Jubraeel v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 131 5 June 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jubraeel v R [2015] NSWCCA 131
Hearing dates: 11 May 2015
Decision date: 05 June 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Johnson J at [65];
RS Hulme AJ at [66]
Decision:
(1) Decline to grant to the applicant leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to rely on Ground 1 in his Notice of Appeal.
(2) Grant to the applicant leave to appeal to rely on Ground 2 in his Notice of Appeal.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – appeal against conviction – whether judge erred in not giving specific alibi directions – whether jury verdict unreasonable – s 6 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b), 6(1)
Criminal Appeal Rules 1952, r 4
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 150
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Griffiths v R [2014] NSWCCA 60
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297
R v Amyouni (unrep, 18/2/88, NSWCCA)
R v Harland (unrep, 22/8/90, NSWCCA)
R v Kanaan [2005] NSWCCA 385; 64 NSWLR 527
R v Merrett [2007] VSCA 1
R v Roberts [2001] NSWCCA 163; 53 NSWLR 138
R v Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 37; 60 NSWLR 86
R v Steeden (unrep, 19/8/94, NSWCCA)
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Marwan Jubraeel (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Barrie (Applicant)
P Ingram SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
George Sten & Co (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/10783
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

New South Wales

Citation:

R v Marwan Jubraeel [2014] NSWSC 838

Date of Decision:

23 June 2014

Before:

Rothman J

File Number(s):

2012/10783

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: Between 10 and 27 February 2014, the applicant, Mr Marwan Jubraeel, was tried before a judge and jury for the murder of Colin Wick on 23 July 2011. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The applicant appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge failed to give the jury adequate directions in relation to an alibi on which he relied and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. By the latter ground the applicant sought to invoke the Court’s power under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to allow an appeal against conviction where the court considers that the jury’s verdict is “unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence”. Leave to appeal is required in respect of that ground (see s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act). I refer to Mr Jubraeel as the “applicant” rather than the appellant as, for reasons appearing below at [24], he also needed leave to rely on his first ground of appeal.

The course of…

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 Jubraeel v R

Details

AGLC: Jubraeel v R [2015] NSWCCA 131
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 131
Decision Date: 05 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jubraeel, appealed against his conviction for the murder of a man in Melbourne. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Jubraeel claimed that the trial judge made errors in not giving specific directions to the jury regarding his alibi defence. He also argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsafe. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in not giving specific alibi directions and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsafe.

The court considered the arguments made by the appellant regarding the trial judge's directions to the jury. It found that the judge had given sufficient directions regarding the alibi defence. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsafe. It found that the evidence presented at trial supported the jury's verdict and that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsafe. The court held that the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in not giving specific alibi directions, and the jury's verdict was reasonable and safe. The court found that the evidence presented at trial supported the jury's verdict, and there was no basis for the appellant's claim that the verdict was unreasonable or unsafe. The court held that the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence be upheld.

Orders