R v Abbouchi; R v Allouche - [2008] VSCA 171

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 428 of 2007

THE QUEEN

KHALED ABBOUCHI

No 452 of 2007

THE QUEEN

AHMED ALLOUCHE

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, NEAVE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 August 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 September 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 171

---

Criminal law – Conviction – Intentionally causing serious injury – Recklessly causing serious injury – Common assault – Affray – Crown case against each applicant formulated on basis that each was principal acting in concert with others – Trial judge charged jury with respect to acting in concert and aiding and abetting – New basis for conviction introduced where aiding and abetting not addressed by prosecution or defence – Unfairness – Potential miscarriage of justice – Identification evidence – Failure to direct jury in accordance with Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 – Potential risk that weaknesses in prosecution case overlooked or not fully appreciated by jury – Aggregate of errors – Application granted – Re-trials ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M A Gamble, SC	Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicants	Mr M J Croucher with Ms O Ondrik and Ms S Coombes	Balot Reilly & Associates

VINCENT JA
NEAVE JA
WEINBERG JA:

Ahmed Allouche and Khaled Abbouchi were jointly presented, before the County Court at Melbourne, on two counts of intentionally causing serious injury (counts 1 and 3), two counts of recklessly causing serious injury (counts 2 and 4), one count of common assault (count 5)[1] and one count of affray (count 6).
[1]Counts 2 and 4 were treated as alternatives to 1 and 3.

On 4 December 2007, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on counts 1, 5, 6 and an alternative to count 3 (intentionally causing injury).

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the sentencing judge, on 12 December 2007, imposed on each the following terms of imprisonment:
On count 1     -          two years’ imprisonment;
Alternative
to count 3      -          one year imprisonment;
On count 5     -          three months’ imprisonment; and
  On count 6     -          six months’ imprisonment.
His Honour ordered that six months of the sentence imposed on the alternative to count 3, one month of that imposed on count 5 and two months of that imposed on count 6 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on count 1. This created, in each case, a total effective sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment in respect of which a non-parole period of 20 months was fixed.
They now seek leave to appeal against their convictions,[2] relying upon identically expressed grounds set out in their Statements of Grounds.
[2]Each has also made application for leave to appeal against sentence. In view of the conclusion at which we have arrived in each case, these applications need not be addressed.

The grounds
Conviction
1.The learned judge erred in his directions on identification evidence; and in particular he…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Abbouchi; R v Allouche and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] VSCA 171
Decision Date: 11 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Abbouchi and Allouche, were convicted of various criminal offences including intentionally and recklessly causing serious injury, common assault, and affray. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the applicants challenged the fairness and legality of their convictions and sentences. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding the applicants' roles in the commission of the offences, specifically acting in concert and aiding and abetting, was legally sound and fair.

The Court found that the trial judge's charge to the jury had several significant flaws. The charge allowed for a new basis of conviction not addressed by either party, which created the potential for unfairness and a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the judge did not adequately direct the jury on the standards of proof in relation to identification evidence, as required by the principles set out in Domican v R. This omission could have led the jury to overlook or undervalue the weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The aggregate of these errors was deemed sufficient to warrant a re-trial.

Following the identification of these critical errors, the Court granted the applicants' applications for special leave to appeal. It concluded that the cumulative effect of the errors was such that a re-trial was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The convictions of the applicants were quashed, and the matter was remitted for re-trial. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all legal principles are properly applied in criminal trials to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused.

Orders