R v Mazaydeh (No 2) - [2014] ACTSC 291

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mazaydeh (No 2)
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 291
Hearing Date(s):	3 and 4 September and 27 October 2014
DecisionDate:	28 October 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Verdicts of guilty on the remaining counts
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Judge alone trial – burglary – theft – attempt to choke and render insensible – – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – common assault – threat to cause property damage
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 26, 27(3) 49 Criminal Code2002 (ACT) ss 44, 306, 308, 311, 407(1) Supreme Court Act1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mohammed Mazaydeh (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Begley (Crown) Mr A Hopkins (Accused)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SCC 3 of 2014; SCC 223 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

Opening Remarks

In accordance with s 68B of the Supreme Court Act1933 (ACT), on 3 February 2014 the accused elected to be tried by a judge alone in relation to the relevant offences and his lawyer certified that he had received advice and made the election freely.

When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to committing the following offences on 26 October 2013:

1.Remain in a building (the complainant’s apartment) as a trespasser with intent to commit theft of property in the building (s 311 Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code)).
2.Dishonestly appropriate the complainant’s mobile telephone with intent to permanently deprive (s 308 Criminal Code).
3.Attempt to intentionally and unlawfully choke the complainant so as to render her insensible or unconscious (s 27(3)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) and s 44 of the Criminal Code).
4.Alternatively to (3), assault the complainant occasioning actual bodily harm to her (Crimes Act s 24). Common assault is a statutory alternative to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Crimes Act s 49).

There are related summary charges:

1.Common assault (first pushing of the complainant onto her bed) (s 26 Crimes Act).
2.Common assault (second pushing of the complainant onto her bed) (s 26 Crimes Act).
3.Threat to cause damage to property (holding a knife to the throat of the complainant’s cat) (s 407(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)).
4.Common assault (causing the complainant’s shirt to tear) (s 26 Crimes Act).

The Crown alleged that the accused was a friend and former partner of the complainant. On 26 October 2013 the complainant and the accused went shopping, then returned to the complainant’s apartment. The Crown alleged that, when the complainant received an incoming telephone call, the accused became jealous because he suspected it was from a male. The complainant asked the accused to leave her apartment. The accused remained. He pushed and attempted to choke the complainant, held a knife to the throat of the complainant’s cat, and stole the complainant’s mobile…

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 Mazaydeh (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Mazaydeh (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 291
Case: [2014] ACTSC 291
Decision Date: 28 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an individual, Mazaydeh, who was charged with various criminal offences including burglary, theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, and a threat to cause property damage. The matter was heard by a single judge in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The key issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the remaining counts of the indictment. The defendant had already been found guilty of some charges and the court was required to determine if the prosecution had proven the remaining allegations against him.

The court carefully examined the evidence presented and considered the credibility of the witnesses. It was noted that the prosecution had provided substantial evidence linking the defendant to the remaining charges. The court found that the evidence was compelling and that the defendant's actions were consistent with the allegations made against him. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the remaining charges beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant was therefore found guilty of all remaining counts.

The court delivered its verdicts, finding the defendant guilty on the remaining counts of burglary, theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, and threat to cause property damage. The court did not accept the defendant's claims of self-defence and found that he had acted with criminal intent. The court found that the defendant's actions were premeditated and that he had engaged in a course of conduct which amounted to the offences charged. The court's findings were based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdicts of guilty on the remaining 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.