R v Kaddour (No 3) - [2019] NSWDC 737

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kaddour (No 3) [2019] NSWDC 737
Hearing dates: 26 March 2019, 10 May 2019, 21 June 2019, 10 July 2019, 31 July 2019, 15 November 2019
Date of orders: 15 November 2019
Decision date: 15 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bright DCJ
Decision:
Verdict of not guilty on all counts.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Judge Alone Trial - judgment
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243
R v Kaddour (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 405
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ahmed Kaddour (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Lange for the Accused
Solicitors:
Mr Whitaker for the Crown
Lange Law for the Accused

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

Judgment – JUDGE ALONE TRIAL

On 26 March 2019 Ahmed Kaddour (the ‘accused’) appeared before Gosford District Court for trial.
A judge alone election had been filed. The Crown consented to the trial proceeding judge alone.
The accused was arraigned on the following counts:

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.
(s24(2), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985)

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.
(s25(2)/s29, Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985)

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.
(s25(2)/29, Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985)

Count 4

Between 14th day of December 2010 and the 13th day of December 2011, at Berkeley Vale in the State of New South Wales, produced a prohibited drug, namely, 3,4 methylenedioxyamphetamine.
(s24(1), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985)

Count 5

On the 13th day of December 2011, in Berkeley Vale in the State of New South Wales, supplied a prohibited drug, namely, 3,4 methylenedioxyamphetamine in an amount of 41.26 grams.
(s25(1)/s29, Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, 1985)

The accused pleaded not guilty to all counts.
On 26 March 2019 the Crown made an application to lead tendency and coincidence evidence. On 10 May 2019 the application was granted (R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243).
On 21 June 2019 the Crown made an application to reopen the Crown case. On 31 July 2019 the application was declined (R v Kaddour (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 405).

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Kaddour (No 3) [2019] NSWDC 737
Case: [2019] NSWDC 737
Decision Date: 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kaddour (No 3), the defendant was brought before the court to address charges related to criminal activities. The proceedings were held in a court that had jurisdiction over the matters at hand. The defendant, Kaddour, was alleged to have engaged in unlawful conduct that warranted a legal examination. The court was tasked with determining the veracity of these allegations.

The primary legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutes and the evaluation of the evidence presented. The court needed to determine whether the prosecution had met the required burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility and weight of specific pieces of evidence, including any potential issues with the manner in which the evidence was obtained.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court found that the prosecution had not successfully demonstrated that the defendant was guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that several key pieces of evidence were either unreliable or inadmissible, thereby undermining the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court delivered a verdict of not guilty on all counts against the defendant.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Kaddour, be acquitted of all charges brought against him. The court's judgment reflected a careful consideration of the legal principles applicable to the case and a thorough assessment of the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict of not guilty on all counts.

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 (No 3) [2019] NSWDC 737
Hearing dates:	26 March 2019, 10 May 2019, 21 June 2019, 10 July 2019, 31 July 2019, 15 November 2019
Date of orders:	15 November 2019
Decision date:	15 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bright DCJ
Decision:	Verdict of not guilty on all counts.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Judge Alone Trial - judgment
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243 R v Kaddour (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 405
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Ahmed Kaddour (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Lange for the Accused Solicitors: Mr Whitaker for the Crown Lange Law for the Accused
File Number(s):	2015/371832
Publication restriction:	Nil