R v Ahmadi - [1999] NSWCCA 161

CITATION: R v Ahmadi [1999] NSWCCA 161

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60615/97

HEARING DATE(S): 23 June 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 June 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Ghulam Ahmadi (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 32; Studdert J at 1; Adams J at 33

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 93/11/0882

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Luland DCJ

COUNSEL: P.G. Berman (Crown)
M. McColm (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: C.K. Smith (Crown)
Watsons (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law; evidence; admissions; considerations of reliability and fairness; Evidence Act ss 85(2), 90.

ACTS CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
Evidence Act
Sentencing Act
Crimes Act

CASES CITED:
House v The King [1936] 55 CLR 499 at 504
Lowe v The Queen [1984] 154 CLR 606

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60615/97
SPIGELMAN CJ
STUDDERT J
ADAMS J
Wednesday 23 June 1999

REGINA v Ghulam AHMADI
JUDGMENT

1   STUDDERT J: The appellant, Ghulam Ahmadi, was found guilty by a District Court jury of an offence under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985 concerning the supply of heroin. He was sentenced in respect of this offence to a minimum term of two years eight months and an additional term of two years. He now appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed.
2   The grounds of the appeal against conviction have been expressed as follows:

(1) The trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the conversations between the appellant and Det. Stephen York and Det. Peter Thurtell;
(2) The trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the ERISP interview between the appellant and Det. Stephen York and Det. Peter Thurtell.

3   The appellant was arrested at a carpark adjacent to a McDonald’s food outlet at Kensington on the night of 13 January 1993. On the prosecution case the appellant was involved immediately prior to his arrest in the supply of a quantity of heroin to an undercover police officer. The driver of the car in which the appellant arrived at the carpark was Jamil Malki, and the prosecution case was that Malki left the car to meet the undercover police officer who was in a second car nearby. The police officer produced a sum of money which Malki checked before returning to his own car in which the appellant was seated. On the prosecution case, the appellant was seen then to hand to Malki a white plastic bag and Malki placed that bag in the boot of his vehicle. He then opened the boot and passed the bag to the police officer. That bag contained five small plastic bags of heroin. The arrests of the appellant and of Malki followed.
4   The appellant was taken in handcuffs to the police station at Surry Hills, where in an ERISP the appellant - and I summarise the effect of the interview - admitted being given a quantity of heroin by a woman he had…

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 R v Ahmadi

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmadi [1999] NSWCCA 161
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 161
Decision Date: 23 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ahmadi, the appellant faced charges related to criminal activities in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of a statement made by the appellant, which was considered an admission under the Evidence Act. The reliability and fairness of this statement, as well as its impact on the trial's outcome, were key points of contention.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of sections 85(2) and 90 of the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the statement in question was an admission and whether its admission was consistent with the principles of reliability and fairness. The appellant argued that the statement should not have been admitted as it was obtained under questionable circumstances and could potentially prejudice the trial.

The court, in delivering its judgment, meticulously examined the circumstances under which the statement was obtained. It found that the statement did constitute an admission under the Evidence Act. However, the court also considered the broader implications of admitting such evidence, focusing on whether it met the standards of reliability and fairness. The court concluded that while the statement was indeed an admission, its admission did not unduly prejudice the fairness of the trial. Therefore, the decision to admit the evidence was upheld, and the conviction was maintained.

As a result of the court's reasoning and findings, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant's conviction stood, and no further orders were made by the court.

Orders