R v Ahmed - [2000] NSWCCA 199

CITATION: R v Ahmed [2000] NSWCCA 199

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60563/98

HEARING DATE(S): 15/05/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Sam Ahmed

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 36; Heydon JA at 37; James J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0214

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL : MC Marien - Crown
In Person - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
-

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

060474/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
HEYDON JA
JAMES J

Monday 15 May 2000

REGINA v SAM AHMED
JUDGMENT

1   SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite Justice James to give the first judgment.
2   JAMES J: Sam Ahmed has appealed against his conviction, after a trial in the District Court before her Honour Judge Karpin and a jury, on one count of armed robbery. The appellant was legally represented at the trial but was not legally represented on the hearing of the appeal.
3   At the trial there was no dispute that an armed robbery had taken place. What was in dispute was whether the Crown could establish that it was the appellant who had committed the armed robbery. The victim of the armed robbery was unable to identify the appellant as being the robber and hence the Crown case that it was the appellant who was the robber was a circumstantial one.
4   At the trial the victim gave evidence that he was employed as a driver by Mayne Nickless. On the morning of 12 March 1998 he was driving a Mayne Nickless van, loaded with stocks of cigarettes to be delivered to tobacconists and service stations.
5   At about 7.30 in the morning he parked the van close to the premises of a business at Earlwood, where he had to make a delivery. As he was checking the cigarettes to be delivered, he noticed someone's arm and then the right side of his face was sprayed, so that his right eye became totally blinded and his left eye partially blinded. The other person said to the driver "throw me the keys" and then raised his arm, apparently to spray the driver's face again.
6   The driver started running and was chased by the other person. The driver pulled the keys to the van out of his pocket and threw them down behind him. The other person picked up the keys, got into the van and drove the van away. Another vehicle, a landcruiser, was also driven away, following the van. The driver immediately telephoned his employer and reported the robbery and the employer notified the police.
7   The driver gave evidence at the trial that he noticed that the other person was wearing a cap and dark glasses, that he was in his twenties; of slim build, and about 5 foot 6 or 5 foot 7 inches tall, that he had four days growth of beard and an olive complexion and that he seemed to be of Lebanese appearance.
8   The…

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 Ahmed

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmed [2000] NSWCCA 199
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 199
Decision Date: 15 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Sam Ahmed, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery in the District Court and subsequently appealed against his conviction. The primary dispute was whether the Crown could establish that it was the appellant who committed the armed robbery. The victim of the robbery was unable to identify the appellant as the perpetrator, thus the Crown presented a circumstantial case. The appellant's primary arguments were that the Crown failed to prove the case against him, that the trial judge erred in not dismissing the jury due to the absence of one member, and that the trial judge erred in her summing up to the jury.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined each of these grounds of appeal. The first ground focused on the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Crown. Despite the victim's inability to identify the appellant, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's presence at the scene of the crime with the spray device in his possession and his physical characteristics matching the description given by the victim, was sufficient for a jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the appellant's version of events as implausible. The second ground of appeal, concerning the discharge of a juror, was also dismissed as the appellant had explicitly instructed his counsel to continue with the trial, and the trial judge had acted in accordance with these instructions. Lastly, the Court found no specific errors in the trial judge's summing up and concluded that it was thorough and adequate.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting of Spigelman CJ, Heydon JA, and James J, unanimously dismissed the appeal against conviction. The order of the court was that the appeal was dismissed.

Orders