R v Kaddour - [2019] NSWDC 243

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243
Hearing dates: 26 March 2019
Date of orders: 10 May 2019
Decision date: 10 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bright DCJ
Decision:
The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1 – 5 for the purpose identified at [86].
The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as coincidence evidence in relation to counts 4 and 5.
Catchwords: Tendency evidence – temporal gap - relied upon to establish identity – coincidence evidence- alternative hypothesis – significant probative value.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: BC v R [2015] NSWCCA 327
CW v The Queen (2010) VSCA 288
El-Haddad v The Queen (2015) 88 NSWLR 93;
Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300
NS v R [2012] NSWCCA 9
Page v The Queen [2015] VSCA 357
R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174
R v Ford (2009) 201 A Crim R 451
R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174
R v LN; R v AW (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 119
R v RN [2005] NSWCCA 413
Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ahmed KADDOUR (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Peter Lange of counsel for the Accused
Solicitors:
Mr G Whitaker for the Crown
Lange Law for the accused

File Number(s): 2015/371832
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence

On 26 March 2019 Ahmad Kaddour (the accused) appeared before Gosford District Court for trial.
A judge alone election had been filed. The Crown consented to the matter proceeding judge alone. I was satisfied that the accused had sought and received legal advice in relation to the effect of a judge alone order and, in those circumstances, the matter proceeded as a judge alone trial.
The accused was arraigned on the following indictment:

Count 1

Between the 14th day of December 2010 and the 13th day of December 2011, in Berkeley Vale in the State of New South Wales, produced a prohibited drug, namely, 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine, in an amount of 24.868 kilograms, which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.

Count 2

On the 13th day of December 2011, in Berkeley Vale in the State of New South Wales, supplied a prohibited drug, namely, 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine, in an amount of 24.868 kilograms, being an amount which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.

Count 3

On the 13th day of December 2011, in Berkeley Vale in the State of New South Wales, supplied a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine, in an amount of 2.8463 kilograms, being an amount which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug.

Count 4

Between 14th day of December 2010 and the 13th day of December 2011, at Berkeley Vale in…

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 Kaddour

Details

AGLC: R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243
Case: [2019] NSWDC 243
Decision Date: 10 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kaddour involved the defendant, Kaddour, who faced charges related to various criminal activities. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of past incidents at Bingara in 2015 to establish a tendency and identity in relation to counts 1 through 5. The case was heard in the relevant court where the admissibility of this past evidence was a key issue.

The central legal issue revolved around the admissibility of the past events at Bingara in 2015. The prosecution argued that this evidence had significant probative value in establishing the defendant's tendency and identity. They also claimed that the evidence could be used as coincidence evidence for counts 4 and 5. The defence contested the admissibility, arguing that the temporal gap between the past events and the current charges undermined the relevance and probative value of the evidence.

The court considered the nature of the evidence and its potential to establish a connection between the past events and the current charges. It was noted that while there was a temporal gap, the coincidence evidence could still be relevant in establishing the defendant's identity and tendency. The court found that the evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 had significant probative value and was therefore admissible as tendency evidence for counts 1 through 5, and as coincidence evidence for counts 4 and 5.

The court ordered that the evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 be admitted as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1 through 5 for the purpose identified, and as coincidence evidence in relation to counts 4 and 5. This ruling allowed the prosecution to use the past incidents to support their case against the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1 – 5 for the purpose identified at [86].

The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as coincidence evidence in relation to counts 4 and 5.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243
Hearing dates:	26 March 2019
Date of orders:	10 May 2019
Decision date:	10 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bright DCJ
Decision:	The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1 – 5 for the purpose identified at [86]. The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as coincidence evidence in relation to counts 4 and 5.
Catchwords:	Tendency evidence – temporal gap - relied upon to establish identity – coincidence evidence- alternative hypothesis – significant probative value.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	BC v R [2015] NSWCCA 327 CW v The Queen (2010) VSCA 288 El-Haddad v The Queen (2015) 88 NSWLR 93; Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 NS v R [2012] NSWCCA 9 Page v The Queen [2015] VSCA 357 R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174 R v Ford (2009) 201 A Crim R 451 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174 R v LN; R v AW (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 119 R v RN [2005] NSWCCA 413 Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Ahmed KADDOUR (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Peter Lange of counsel for the Accused Solicitors: Mr G Whitaker for the Crown Lange Law for the accused
File Number(s):	2015/371832
Publication restriction:	Nil