R v Houda - [1993] QCA 562

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 562

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 334 of 1993

Brisbane

[R v. Houda]

T H E Q U E E N

FADY HOUDA

(Appellant)

________________________________________________________________
_

Macrossan C.J. McPherson J.A. Pincus J.A.

________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 20/12/93
Judgment of the Court
________________________________________________________________

A	PPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - perjury - affidavit put forward in application for bail contained false statements - affidavit purportedly sworn before a justice of the peace - whether proved appellant swore to truth of affidavit - whether jury properly could act upon the signature of affidavit as an admission of administration of oath - whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Counsel:	Mr T Carmody for the appellant. Mr J Hunter for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant. Director of Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	18 November 1993.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 334 of 1993

Brisbane

Before

Macrossan C.J. McPherson J.A. Pincus J.A.

[R v. Houda]

T H E Q U E E N

FADY HOUDA

(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 20/12/93

This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was convicted of four charges of perjury, based on the content of an affidavit signed by him for the purpose of obtaining bail. There was evidence on which the jury could properly find that the affidavit was signed, and it was not in issue that the affidavit contained false statements. The jury could without doubt properly find that the statements were made by the appellant knowing they were false. The question raised on appeal was whether the verdicts were safe, since although the affidavit purported to have been sworn before a justice of the peace, there was no evidence, it was submitted, upon which the jury could be satisfied that it was in truth sworn. The justice of the peace before whom the affidavit purported to have been made was not called because, it appears, he was overseas at the time of the trial. The appellant gave no evidence at his trial.

The offence of perjury is defined by s. 123 of the Criminal Code which reads, so far as is relevant, as follows:

"Any person who in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then depending in that proceeding, or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of a crime, which is called perjury.
It is immaterial whether the testimony is given on oath or under any sanction authorised by law.
The forms and ceremonies used in administering the oath or in otherwise binding the person giving the testimony to speak the truth are immaterial, if he assents to the forms and ceremonies actually used.
It is immaterial whether the false statement is given orally or in writing..."

It was contended on behalf of the appellant…

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 [1993] QCA 562
Case: [1993] QCA 562
Decision Date: 20/12/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Houda, the appellant, Houda, stood accused of perjury related to an affidavit presented in support of a bail application. The affidavit was allegedly sworn before a justice of the peace and contained statements that were later found to be false. The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had successfully proven that the appellant swore to the truth of the affidavit, whether the jury was justified in treating the affidavit's signature as an admission of taking the oath, and if the verdict was both unsafe and unsatisfactory. The case was heard in a court of criminal appeal.

The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility and weight of the affidavit in question, the interpretation of the oath taken by the appellant, and the impact of any potential falsehoods on the verdict's integrity. The court needed to consider the procedural aspects of how the affidavit was handled and sworn, the implications of the appellant's signature on the affidavit, and whether the jury's decision was influenced by any misapprehension regarding the affidavit's veracity.

The court examined the evidence and legal arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. It found that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven that the appellant swore to the truth of the affidavit, as there was no direct evidence of the appellant administering the oath. The court also held that the jury could not properly consider the appellant's signature as an admission of taking the oath without additional evidence. Given these findings, the court concluded that the verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial to ensure that the appellant received a fair hearing based on accurate and complete evidence.

The final orders of the court mandated a new trial for the appellant, Houda, to address the issues of perjury related to the affidavit in question. The court ensured that all proceedings in the new trial would strictly adhere to the legal standards and evidentiary rules, providing Houda with the opportunity to defend himself under proper legal conditions.

Orders