Legal Research
Cases
R v Khazaal

R v Khazaal

Case [2006] NSWSC 1061 25 October 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Khazaal [2006] NSWSC 1061
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 22/09/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 October 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: I dismiss the motion and reseve the question of costs to the hearing of the principal application brought on behalf of the Commonwealth.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001
Evidence Act 1995
National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

CASES CITED: Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404 at 469
R v H; R v C [2004] 2 AC 134 at 155 (para 35)
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 582, 584-5 per Mason J.
Commonwealth of Australia v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604 at 620
Seymour v Price; Fitzgerald & Anor v Price BC 9805031
Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 596
Church of Scientology v Woodward (1982) 43 ALR 587 at 615
R v Mallah (unreported 11 February 2005 at para 23 per Wood CJ at CL)
Carbotech-Australia v Yates [2006] NSWSC 269 per Campbell J at para 13
Traljesic v Attorney General for teh Commonwealth [2006] FCA 125 per Rares J at paras 22-23
Jackson v Wells (1985) 5 FCR 296 at 307-308
D & J Constructions Pty Ltd v Head (1987) NSWLR 118 per Bryson J at 122-123
Nicopoulos v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2004] NSWSC 562
Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 586
Regina (Roberts) v Parole Board [2005] 3 WLR 152

PARTIES: Regina v Belal Saadallah Khazaal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1095

COUNSEL: Mr J. Kirk - Applicants
Mr P. Willie QC; Mr T. Begbie - Commonwealth Attorney-General
Mr D, Fagan SC - Commonwealth DPP

SOLICITORS: Gilbert + Tobin - Applicants
Australian Government Solicitor - Commonwealth Attorney-General
Commonwealth DPP

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

WEDNESDAY 25 October 2006

2005/1095 - REGINA v Belal Saadallah KHAZAAL

JUDGMENT - On Motion for access to documents (Applicants - Messrs Houda and Lange: Respondent – Commonwealth of Australia)

1 HIS HONOUR: The present application arises as a preliminary to proceedings in which the Commonwealth, through the Australian Government Solicitor, seeks to obtain a permanent injunction to restrain Adam Houda and Peter Lange from continuing to act for Belal Saadallah Khazaal (“the accused”) in relation to his trial on two charges alleging the commission of terrorist offences.

2 It may be helpful if I say something as to the general background to explain the way in which the present application arises. On 2 September 2005, Mr Khazaal pleaded not guilty to two charges: the first was a charge that he made a document between 20 and 23 September 2003, namely, a book, connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act, knowing of that connection. The second charge was that between 22 September 2003 and May 2004, the…

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 Khazaal

Details

AGLC: R v Khazaal [2006] NSWSC 1061
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1061
Decision Date: 25 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Khazaal involved charges against individuals alleged to have committed terrorist offences. The application in question sought a permanent injunction to restrain certain individuals from continuing to act for the accused. The case was heard in a court of law in Australia, which dealt with criminal matters concerning terrorism.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for a permanent injunction should be granted. The court was required to determine whether the individuals should be restrained from acting for the accused in the criminal proceedings. The application also raised broader questions about the intersection between legal representation and national security considerations, particularly in the context of terrorism charges.

The court carefully considered the legal arguments and the implications of granting the injunction. It concluded that the application should be dismissed. The court found that the imposition of such an injunction would potentially infringe upon the rights of the accused to fair legal representation. Additionally, the court noted that the application did not meet the stringent criteria for such an extraordinary remedy. The court balanced the need to ensure the integrity of the legal process with the rights of the accused and the practicalities of conducting criminal trials.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for a permanent injunction. The court made it clear that this decision did not affect the ability of the individuals to continue to act for the accused in the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Orders