R v Abdollahi (No 10)

[2013] NSWSC 483

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Abdollahi (No 10) [2013] NSWSC 483
Hearing dates:	28 March 2013
Decision date:	28 March 2013
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	R A Hulme J
Decision:	Application for directed verdict of acquittal refused
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - practice and procedure - judgment by direction - no case submission - whether evidence taken at its highest could satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt - evidence sufficient to satisfy elements - application dismissed
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina Ali Abdollahi Haider Hussein Ali Mohammed Naim Amiri Amir Manafi Bejoushin Taleb Feili Ali Haidari Majid Parhizkar Kamelledin Shahsawari Medhi Viasi
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G Farmer SC with Ms J Single (Crown) Mr C Smith (Abdollahi) Mr M Paish (Ali) Mr J O'Sullivan (Amiri) Mr R Jankowski (Bejoushin) Mr W Flynn (Feili) Mr R Pontello (Haidari) Mr D Marr (Parhizkar) Mr P Little (Shahsawari) Mr A Webb (Viasi) Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Watsons Solicitors & Barristers Archbold Legal CBD Criminal Defence Lawyers Blair Criminal Lawyers L David Lock
File Number(s):	2011/219556

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: We are now at a point in this trial where the Crown case has concluded, I have dealt with applications for directed verdicts for some accused, defences cases have been presented, and we are part of the way through hearing defence counsels' closing addresses. Mr Little, counsel for the accused Shahsawari, now makes an application for a directed verdict in respect of his client.

1. The jury are waiting patiently in the jury room for the continuation of the address by counsel for another accused. It is Easter Thursday and we are only sitting until 1:00pm. For those reasons, whilst I have carefully considered what has been put by Mr Little. I propose to give my reasons for refusing the application quite briefly.

1. Taking the Crown case at its highest, in accordance with well-accepted principles in this area, Mr Little has extracted in written submissions a passage of evidence given by Ms Bishop appearing in the transcript at pages 900 and 902. In my view that evidence has to be considered together with evidence given by Ms Bishop at pages 871 to 872 and pages 874 and 875. In my view, whilst it cannot be said that the Crown case in respect of the accused Shahsawari is a strong one, there is just enough to make out the elements of the offences charged.

1. In my view there is sufficient evidence for the matter to be considered by the jury. What they make of it is beside the point. The application is refused.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 May 2013