R v Chalabian (No. 3) - [2022] NSWSC 77

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chalabian (No. 3) [2022] NSWSC 77
Hearing dates: 14 December 2021, 1 February 2022
Date of orders: 8 February 2022
Decision date: 08 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1. The Court allows the application by the Crown to give directions to the jury with respect to the role of solicitor and trust accounts (in accordance with an amended form of PTMFI 9) after opening addresses.
2. The Crown objection to parts of the telephone intercept conversations at pages 58-62, 159-162, 165-175 and 184-193 of PTMFI 3 is overruled.
3. The Crown objection to part of the telephone intercept conversations at pages 63-66 and 157-158 of PTMFI 3 is upheld.

Catchwords:
CRIME – pretrial hearing – charge of money laundering under s.400.3(1) Criminal Code (Cth) – accused a solicitor charged with laundering proceeds of crime through trust account – consideration of directions to be given to jury concerning duties of solicitor and trust accounts – appropriate to give jury short directions early in the trial - rulings concerning Crown objections to tender of parts of conversations recorded under telephone intercept warrant

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015

Cases Cited:
Attorney General (Cth) v Foster (1999) 84 FCR 582
Director of Public Prosecutions v El Mawas (2006) 66 NSWLR 93; [2006] NSWCA 154
Dyldam Developments Pty Limited v Jones [2008] NSWCA 56
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Le v McElwee [2008] ACTSC 55
Roach v R (2019) 344 FLR 429; [2019] NSWCCA 160

Texts Cited:
Australian Law Reform Commission, “Evidence”, Report 26, 1985
Australian Law Reform Commission, “Uniform Evidence Law”, Report 102, 2005

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Sevag Chalabian (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms T McDonald SC; Ms G Wright (Crown)
Mr GA Brady SC; Mr A Williams (Accused)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Streeton Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/216206
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The Accused, Sevag Chalabian, is charged on an indictment containing a single count under s.400.3(1) Criminal Code (Cth) in the following terms:

“Between about 1 February 2017 and about 18 May 2017 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, [he] did deal with money or property that was, and that [he] believed to be, proceeds of crime, and at the time of dealing the value of the money or property was $1,000,000 or more.”

The trial is scheduled to commence at the Supreme Court in Sydney on 21 February 2022.
The parties have undertaken case management steps in accordance with what was said by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Roach v R (2019) 344 FLR 429; [2019] NSWCCA 160 at [128]-[141].
In advance of the trial, the parties have complied with case management orders including undertaking a pretrial conference under s.140 Criminal…

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 Chalabian (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Chalabian (No. 3) [2022] NSWSC 77
Case: [2022] NSWSC 77
Decision Date: 08 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chalabian (No. 3) involves the defendant, Chalabian, a solicitor, who is charged with money laundering under section 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). Chalabian is alleged to have laundered proceeds of crime through his trust account. The proceedings took place in a court of law, likely a superior court, given the complexity of the charge and the nature of the evidence involved.

The central legal issues addressed in the case pertain to the directions to be given to the jury regarding the duties of a solicitor and the use of trust accounts. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to provide the jury with concise instructions about these matters early in the trial. Additionally, the court addressed Crown objections to the tender of parts of conversations that were recorded under a telephone intercept warrant. These objections likely revolved around the admissibility and relevance of the intercepted communications to the case at hand.

In delivering its judgment, the court determined that it was indeed appropriate to give the jury short directions early in the trial concerning the duties of a solicitor and the use of trust accounts. This decision aimed to ensure that the jury had a clear understanding of these concepts, which were central to the charge of money laundering. Regarding the Crown's objections to the tender of intercepted conversations, the court ruled that certain parts of these conversations were admissible as evidence, provided they were relevant to the case. The court's reasoning was based on the balance between the need for effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights under the law.

No specific final orders were detailed in the extract, but typically in such cases, the court would proceed to outline the next steps in the trial process, including any directions to be given to the jury, the admissibility of evidence, and the overall management of the trial. The outcome of these rulings would directly influence the progression and conduct of the trial against Chalabian.

Orders