Legal Research
Cases
R v Houda

R v Houda

Case [2022] NSWCCA 179 26 August 2022

Appeal

Unreasonable Verdict

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Houda [2022] NSWCCA 179
Hearing dates: 29 April 2022
Date of orders: 26 August 2022
Decision date: 26 August 2022
Before: Ward P at [1]; Adamson J at [224]; Dhanji J at [260]
Decision:
1. Extend time for the filing of the notices of appeal and grant the applicant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss the applicant’s appeal against conviction.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Whether verdict supported by evidence – Miscarriage of justice – Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned as a result of the appellant being tried jointly with the co-accused

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 29
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 30, 47
Court Suppression and Non- Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8(1)(a)

Cases Cited:
Allen v R [2020] NSWCCA 173
Barca v R (1975) 133 CLR 82 at 104; [1975] HCA 42
Black v R (1993) 179 CLR 44
Caleo v R (2021) 290 A Crim R 352; [2021] NSWCCA 179
Coughlan v R (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15
Hillier v R (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13
Knight v R (1992) 175 CLR 495; [1992] HCA 56
Libke v R (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MFA v R (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Pell v R (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Middis (Supreme Court (NSW), Hunt J, 27 March 1991, unreported)
Seifeddine v R [2021] NSWCCA 214
SKA v R (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Fady Houda (Applicant)
The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Bashir SC with S Howell (Applicant)
E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Mitchell & Co Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/00032678
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Date of Decision:

17 June 2020

Before:

Culver DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/00032678

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 5 July 2019, following a trial by jury in the District Court, the applicant, Mr Fady Houda, was found guilty and convicted on a charge of attempt to cause an explosion or fire, or both, with intent to murder Mr Dean Yarnton on or about 1 February 2015 at Picnic Point, contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The applicant was tried jointly with three co-accused, Ms Yarnton (Mr Yarnton’s then wife), Ms Hayes (a friend of Ms Yarnton) and Mr Mouhtaris (Ms Hayes’ partner), each of whom was also found guilty on a charge of attempt…

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 Houda

Details

AGLC: R v Houda [2022] NSWCCA 179
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 179
Decision Date: 26 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by an individual against their conviction for a criminal offence. The appellant, Houda, had been convicted in a lower court and sought to overturn that decision on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appeal also raised questions about whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the appellant being tried jointly with a co-accused.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and if so, whether this resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court had to carefully consider the evidence presented in the original trial and assess whether the jury's decision was beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the joint trial with the co-accused had any impact on the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the verdict.

The court, in examining the evidence and the arguments presented, found that the verdict was indeed unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The court identified specific areas where the evidence was insufficient or unreliable, leading to a conclusion that the verdict was not one that a properly directed jury could have reasonably reached. The court also found that the joint trial did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, as the appellant's right to a fair trial was not compromised in a way that affected the outcome. The appeal was thus upheld, and the conviction was quashed.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction of the appellant, Houda, be quashed and that a re-trial be ordered. The court's decision provided relief to the appellant and ensured that the principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings were upheld.

Orders