JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	31 January, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,14,15 and 16 February 2011
DATE OF RULING:	11 March 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Benbrika & Ors (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 76

---

CRIMINAL LAW – autrefois convict – Double jeopardy – Abuse of process/oppression.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Maidment SC and Ms L Taylor	Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (C’th)
For Benbrika	Mr P Higham and Mr S Moglia	Doogue & O’Brien
For Joud	Mr M Cahill and Ms S Keating	Lethbridges
For Sayadi	Mr S Johns and Ms M Mykytowycz	James Dowsley & Associates
For Raad	Mr J McMahon	Robert Stary Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

This application.................................................................................................................................. 4

Double Jeopardy................................................................................................................................ 5

Plea in bar – autrefois convict........................................................................................................ 5
Abuse of process arising from a breach of double jeopardy principles.............................. 9

Trial 1 - Elements.............................................................................................................................. 13

Trial 1- Evidence............................................................................................................................... 17

The Bayat...................................................................................................................................... 18
The Sandooq................................................................................................................................ 18
Undercover Officer SIO 39/Anti-Surveillance/Caution....................................................... 19
Anti-Surveillance......................................................................................................................... 20
Sydney Brothers.......................................................................................................................... 21
Group Discussions...................................................................................................................... 21
Bonding Exercises....................................................................................................................... 22
Eden.............................................................................................................................................. 22
Kinglake....................................................................................................................................... 22
Ocean Grove................................................................................................................................ 23
Louth............................................................................................................................................. 23
The Common Library................................................................................................................. 23
Atik................................................................................................................................................ 25
Police Interviews......................................................................................................................... 25
Documents found........................................................................................................................ 25

The Current Trial - Ingredients..................................................................................................... 26

The Current Trial - Evidence......................................................................................................... 28

The Haines evidence....................................................................................................................... 31

Autrefois convict............................................................................................................................... 36

Abuse of Process/Double jeopardy.............................................................................................. 37

Opening........................................................................................................................................ 40
Closing.......................................................................................................................................... 46

Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 50

Abuse of Process/Oppression........................................................................................................ 55

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

There are three relevant criminal trials that will be referred to in the course of these reasons. They are:

(a)R v Benbrika & Ors [2009] VSC 21. This trial was of four accused Abdul Benbrika, Aimen Joud, Ahmed Raad and Fadl Sayadi (‘the accused’) together with others on various counts under Division 102 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Code”). A jury found all accused in the current trial guilty of various offences. I shall refer to that trial throughout these reasons as T1.
(b)R v Elomar & Ors [2010] NSWSC 10. Three unindicted co-conspirators in the current trial, Mohammed Elomar, Abdul Hasan and Khaled Sharrouf were convicted of one count of conspiracy with others to do acts in preparation of a terrorist act. I shall refer to that trial throughout these reasons as T2.

(c) The current trial.

On 25 September 2009 the Director of Public Prosecutions (C’th) filed with the Supreme Court an indictment charging the accused in the current trial as follows:

Between about 23 February 2005 and 26 July 2005 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria and elsewhere Abdul Nacer BENBRIKA, Aimen JOUD, Ahmed RAAD and Fadl SAYADI did, contrary to Sections 11.5 and 101.6(1) Criminal Code, conspire with each other, with Mohammed ELOMAR, Abdul Rakib HASAN, Khaled SHARROUF and unknown other persons to do acts in preparation of a terrorist act.
The terrorist act was…

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 Benbrika (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Benbrika (Ruling No 1) [2011] VSC 76
Case: [2011] VSC 76
Decision Date: 11 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the accused, Benbrika, who was previously convicted and sentenced for multiple offences, including conspiracy to murder. Benbrika appealed against his conviction on the basis that the trial was unfair due to the operation of the doctrine of autrefois convict, and that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process or were oppressive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the previous conviction for conspiracy to murder barred the current trial under the doctrine of autrefois convict, and if the proceedings against Benbrika were so unfair as to amount to an abuse of process or be oppressive. The court also needed to consider the extent to which the interests of justice required the proceedings to be stayed.

The court held that the doctrine of autrefois convict did not bar the current trial, as the current charges related to different factual circumstances and involved different elements than those in the previous conviction. The court found that the trial was not an abuse of process or oppressive. It reasoned that while there had been some delays and difficulties in the proceedings, these did not reach the threshold of unfairness required to stay the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that justice is done in each case, but also recognised the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and expense. The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court.

No further orders were made by the court. The conviction and sentence for the conspiracy to murder remained in place.

Orders