Legal Research
Cases
R v Ibrahim

R v Ibrahim

Case [2003] VSCA 180 18 November 2003

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 154 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
DAVID IBRAHIM

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT and EAMES, JJ.A. and ASHLEY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 August 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 November 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 180

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Evidence – Lies and post-killing conduct – Whether lies and conduct relied on by prosecutor as evidence of consciousness of guilt – Whether directions were required – No miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G.J.C. Silbert	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

VINCENT, J.A.:

I agree that this application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed. I do so for the reasons advanced by Eames, J.A. in his judgment.

EAMES, J.A.:

On Sunday 27 September 1998 at 11.45 a.m. a Ford utility driven by the applicant came to a halt with a loud screech of tyres in Copernicus Way, Keilor Downs, a residential area. The noise attracted the attention of a number of residents in nearby houses who observed the events that followed and later gave evidence in the trial of the applicant. The utility had cut in front of a small sports coupe, the driver of which was Susan Chircop. Seated beside her was one Thomas Falzon. Susan Chircop was the sister of Carol Chircop, who had been in a volatile relationship with the applicant. The sports coupe was the vehicle of Carol Chircop, but, unbeknown to the applicant, had been borrowed by Susan on this day.

The utility came to a stop at right angles to the roadway blocking the passage of the sports car. The sports car was less than a metre from the utility. Witnesses gave evidence that the driver's side door of the utility was flung open and the applicant then got out and had in his hand an object which proved to be a loaded .25 Browning pistol. The observers said that he looked angry and that he ran towards the driver's side of the sports car and then fired four shots into the car. Two bullets went through the front windscreen and two went through the driver's side window and struck the driver, Susan Chircop. She had turned away from the shooter and the bullets went into her back. When the shots were fired the applicant was so close to his victim that gunshot residue landed on her clothing. Ms Chircop did not die immediately but attempted to escape by placing her foot on the accelerator and then she and the passenger turned the steering wheel to the left, causing the car to mount the kerb and drive around the utility. The sports car then drove diagonally across a vacant corner block and turned left into Lady Nelson Way. The car took a right-hand turn into Lipton Street and then turned into a vacant block. Ms Chircop was

dying and…

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 Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: R v Ibrahim [2003] VSCA 180
Case: [2003] VSCA 180
Decision Date: 18 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ibrahim, was convicted of the murder of an individual, and he appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on the reliability and admissibility of certain evidence presented by the prosecution, specifically lies Ibrahim allegedly told and his conduct after the killing. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in relation to the evidence and whether the jury's reliance on such evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the lies and post-killing conduct of Ibrahim were properly admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. It was essential to establish whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the principles governing the admissibility and weight of such evidence. The court assessed the trial judge's directions to ensure they aligned with the principles of criminal law, particularly those concerning the admissibility of evidence of a person's consciousness of guilt. The court also considered whether the jury's consideration of this evidence led to a miscarriage of justice, thereby undermining the fairness and reliability of the verdict.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions were sufficient, and there was no miscarriage of justice. The court found that the evidence of lies and conduct was properly before the jury, and the trial judge's directions enabled the jury to appropriately weigh this evidence. The court concluded that the jury's reliance on such evidence did not compromise the fairness of the trial, and the conviction was upheld. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court, affirming the conviction and sentence as determined by the lower court.

Orders