R v BB (No 4) - [2019] NSWSC 1392

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BB (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1392
Hearing dates: 26 – 30 August, 03 – 06, 09 – 11, 13, 16 – 17 September 2019
Date of orders: 17 September 2019
Decision date: 17 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision: (1) The application for a directed verdict is rejected and the matter will proceed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Application for Directed Verdict after close of Crown Case – whether evidence of supply by Accused – meaning of supply in context of offence – means “make available to” – discussion of principles – Crown case taken at highest allows a jury, properly instructed, an inference that accused supplied HICO, knowing the sanctioned goods were going to Iran

Legislation Cited:
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 (Cth)
Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions – Iran) Regulations 2008 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
United Nations (UN Sanction Enforcement Law) Declaration 2008 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51
JMR (1991) 57 ACrimR 39
R v Kaldor [2004] NSWCCA 425
R v Philip Wan Por Leung (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450
R v The Queen (1989) 18 NSWLR 74

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
BB (a pseudonym) (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
M McHugh SC / A McGrath (Crown)
S Pararajasingham (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown)
Musgrave Legal (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/321930
Publication restriction: Suppression orders made under s 7(1) of the Court Suppression and NPO Act 2010 (NSW)

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is an application by the accused, through his counsel, for a verdict by direction. A written outline of that application, or the grounds and/or arguments in favour thereof, is set out in a document which has been marked for identification (MFI-18) in these proceedings. Essentially, the accused submits that the evidence before the Court is incapable of establishing an element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The stage at which the Court has reached is that the evidence in the whole of the trial is complete. There was no oral evidence adduced by the accused and such documentary evidence as the accused tendered was tendered through witnesses called by the Crown. While it is an irrelevant factor, it should not be understood by the foregoing that the Crown called witnesses that were unfavourable to it.
The Crown has addressed the jury on how the jury should take the evidence that is before it and come to the conclusion that the elements of the offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court previously, in a preliminary ruling, dealt with the issues of direction that were raised by the parties. Those matters were dealt with by the Court in R v BB [2019] NSWSC 1054, (hereinafter “BB (No 1)”). The matters that were then raised with the Court and with which the Court dealt…

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 BB (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v BB (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1392
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1392
Decision Date: 17 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v BB (No 4) involved the respondent, BB, who was facing charges related to the alleged supply of goods that were sanctioned and intended for use in Iran. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the respondent applied for a directed verdict following the close of the Crown's case. The court was required to determine whether the evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to support a conviction for the offence of supplying sanctioned goods to Iran. The case hinged on the interpretation of the term "supply" in the context of the relevant offence and whether the evidence allowed for an inference that BB made the goods available to the intended recipient, knowing that the goods were sanctioned and intended for use in Iran.

The court addressed the legal issues by examining the principles relevant to the offence of supplying sanctioned goods. It considered the meaning of the term "supply" and whether it included making goods available to another person. The court discussed the Crown's case at its highest and determined whether the evidence allowed a jury, properly instructed, to infer that BB supplied the goods, knowing they were sanctioned and intended for Iran. The court held that the evidence, when taken at its highest, did permit such an inference, and accordingly, the application for a directed verdict was dismissed.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of the jury being properly instructed on the meaning of "supply" in the context of the offence. The court found that the evidence, when considered in light of the proper instructions, allowed the jury to infer that BB made the goods available to the intended recipient, knowing that the goods were sanctioned and intended for use in Iran. Consequently, the respondent's application for a directed verdict was rejected, and the matter proceeded to the jury for determination. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the principles relevant to the offence, ensuring that the jury was able to make an informed decision based on the proper legal framework.

Orders