R v El-Zeyat - [2002] NSWCCA 138

CITATION: R v El-Zeyat [2002] NSWCCA 138 revised - 08/02/2005

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60724/01

HEARING DATE(S): 4/2/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 May 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Naseam El-Zeyat

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 61; Dowd J at 71

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0645

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Backhouse DCJ

COUNSEL : R C Pontello (App)
R A Hulme (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Hinder discovery of evdience concerning a serious inditable offence - tamper and assist with disposal of vehicle - whether specific or general knowledge of offence required - statutory interpretaton.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Interpretation Act 1987

CASES CITED:
Bahri Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR
He Kaw Te v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19
R v Bright [1916] 2 KB 441
Regina v CWW (1933) 32 NSWLR 348
R v Stone (1981) VR 739
R v Tevendale (1955) VLR 95

DECISION: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence quashed. A verdict of acquittal entered.

- 22 -IN THE COURT OF

60724/01

WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
DOWD J
Friday 3 May 2002

Regina v Naseam El Zeyat

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: On 2 October 2001, the appellant was indicted before her Honour Judge Backhouse QC at the Sydney District Court on the following charge:

with intent

Crimes Act 1900

2 The appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried before her Honour and a jury of twelve. On 5 October 2001 the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

3 He now appeals against the conviction, but not against the sentence which was imposed, of imprisonment for a term of 12 months, with a non-parole period of 6 months.

FACTS

4 On 17 July 1998, the occupants of a red Mitsubishi station wagon, registration number VFU 560, became involved in an altercation with three men outside the Five Dock Hotel. One of the occupants of the vehicle, said to be Michael Kanaan, produced a firearm and fired a number of shots in their direction. As a result, two of the men died and the other was injured. After the shots were fired the vehicle was driven away from the scene. Its registration number was recorded by a bystander, and a police search for it was immediately commenced.

5 A witness, given the pseudonym Alan Rossini, was called in the Crown case. He had been given an…

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 El-Zeyat

Details

AGLC: R v El-Zeyat [2002] NSWCCA 138
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 138
Decision Date: 3 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants in this case were convicted of hindering the discovery of evidence related to a serious indictable offence, specifically by tampering with and assisting in the disposal of a vehicle. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether specific or general knowledge of the offence was required for a conviction under the relevant statutory provisions.

The court examined the interpretation of the legislation, particularly whether the knowledge of the existence of an indictable offence was a necessary element for the offence of hindering the discovery of evidence. The defendants argued that there needed to be specific knowledge of the particular offence for which the evidence was being sought, whereas the prosecution maintained that general knowledge of an indictable offence was sufficient. The court found that the statutory language did not require specific knowledge of the offence but rather general knowledge of an indictable offence was enough to satisfy the statutory requirements.

In its judgment, the court concluded that the defendants' actions constituted a hindering of the discovery of evidence because they had tampered with and assisted in the disposal of the vehicle, which was connected to an indictable offence. The court held that the knowledge of an indictable offence, without the need for specificity regarding the particular offence, was sufficient to support a conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders