KOBEISSI -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 44
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 44 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 01/03/2000 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:240/1999 | 11 FEBRUARY 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 11/02/00 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against conviction granted Appeal against conviction dismissed Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALAN ALI KOBEISSI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Receiving Sufficiency of evidence Crown case circumstantial Doctrine of recent possession Absence of reasonable explanation Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Receiving One offence of receiving property to the value of $20,000 Apparent commercial purpose Sentence of 18 months imprisonment upheld |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) s 414 |
Case References: | Bruce v The Queen (1987) 61 ALJR 603 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 McCarthy v The Queen [1985] WAR 84 R v Connolly (No 2) [1991] 2 Qd R 661 Trainer v The King (1906) 4 CLR 126 Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Eastough v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998 Flintoff v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980388; 2 June 1998 Harwood v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950372; 27 July 1995 Heferen v The Queen [1999] WASCA 81 Hogermeer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970657; 2 December 1997 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 K v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980276; 22 May 1998 Negri v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980649; 18 September 1998 Owens v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980326; 17 June 1998 Palmer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970263; 21 May 1997 Pedretti v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970714; 12 December 1997 Quina v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930709; 10 December 1993 R v Calabria (1982) 7 A Crim R 207 R v Causby (1984) 17 A Crim R 461 R v Dickson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990203; 23 April 1999 R v Dinsdale, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990021; 2 February 1999 R v Ford (1998) 103 A Crim R 501 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Hicks (1987) 27 A Crim R 401 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v P (1992) 64 A Crim R 381 R v Percy [1975] Tas SAR 62 R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Russon v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950725; 21 December 1995 Steuart v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of… |
Continue reading Kobeissi v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Kobeissi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 44
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved the defendant, Kobeissi, who was charged with receiving property. The dispute centered on whether the evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to convict the defendant and the appropriate sentence if found guilty. The matter was heard and determined by the court.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the Crown to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown's case was largely circumstantial, relying on the doctrine of recent possession and the absence of a reasonable explanation for the defendant's possession of the property. Additionally, the court had to determine an appropriate sentence if the defendant was found guilty of the charge of receiving property.
In examining the evidence, the court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown, particularly the recent possession of the property and the lack of a reasonable explanation, was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the nature of the property and the apparent commercial purpose of the transaction. The defendant's appeal against his conviction was dismissed, and the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was upheld. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The application for leave to appeal against the conviction was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the Crown to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown's case was largely circumstantial, relying on the doctrine of recent possession and the absence of a reasonable explanation for the defendant's possession of the property. Additionally, the court had to determine an appropriate sentence if the defendant was found guilty of the charge of receiving property.
In examining the evidence, the court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown, particularly the recent possession of the property and the lack of a reasonable explanation, was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the nature of the property and the apparent commercial purpose of the transaction. The defendant's appeal against his conviction was dismissed, and the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was upheld. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The application for leave to appeal against the conviction was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against conviction granted
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.