R v Ahmadi; R v Hosseini; R v A, N; R v M, A

The Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Vanstone, Stanley, and Parker JJ, heard appeals from four appellants: R v Ahmadi, R v Hosseini, R v A, N, and R v M, A. The appellants were convicted of various charges arising from an incident on 3 September 2015, including aggravated serious criminal trespass, aggravated causing serious harm with intent, aggravated causing harm with intent, and aggravated assault. One appellant, M, was also convicted of possessing a firearm without a licence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with weapons and masked, entered a residence and attacked its occupants. A witness, Attana, claimed to have recognised the four appellants as they fled the scene, and also stated he was assaulted by two of them.

The appeals raised several grounds concerning alleged errors by the trial judge. These included the improper admission or rejection of evidence, misdirection and non-direction to the jury, and the conduct of the prosecutor. Specifically, grounds of appeal related to the trial judge's failure to direct the jury that there was no evidence of one appellant, A, having had a haircut between the time of the incident and his arrest, despite prosecutorial suggestions to the contrary. Further grounds concerned alleged defects in the directions given to the jury regarding the separate consideration of each accused and each charge, particularly in relation to the concept of joint criminal enterprise and the onus of proof. Complaints were also made about the judge's directions on the evidence of recognition and its alleged support from the discovery of weapons in one appellant's car.

The Full Court, in dismissing the appeals, found that while the prosecutor's conduct was not entirely faultless, it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge's directions were considered sound, and it was open to the jury to convict all four appellants on the evidence presented. Regarding the specific grounds, the court held that although permission to appeal on the ground concerning the lack of evidence of a haircut for appellant A should be granted, the ground itself was not made good. Similarly, complaints about directions on separate consideration and the linking of recognition evidence to weapons found in M's car were found to be without merit.

Ultimately, the Court made specific orders regarding each appellant. Permission to appeal was granted on various grounds for Ahmadi, M, and A, but their appeals were dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused for Hosseini, and his appeal was also dismissed.