R v Najjarin - [2001] NSWCCA 46

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Najjarin [2001] NSWCCA 46

FILE NUMBER(S):
60433/00

HEARING DATE(S): 01/03/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 01/03/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Domenique Najjarin

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA Simpson J Carruthers AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/3036

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ford DCJ

COUNSEL:
(Appellant): P M Naughtin
(Crown): C K Maxwell QC

SOLICITORS:
(Crown): S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - assault occasioning actual bodly harm - appeal against conviction - verdict not supportable by evidence - sufficient evidence to support conviction.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Evidence Act 1995

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60433/00

IPP AJA
SIMPSON J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Thursday, 1 March 2001

REGINA v Domenique NAJJARIN

JUDGMENT

1 IPP AJA: The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of three charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In respect of the first count, the appellant was ordered to enter into a recognisance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to place himself under the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service during that period.

2 As regards each of the remaining two counts, a sentence of twelve months periodic detention was imposed, each such sentence to be concurrent upon the other. The appellant appeals against the three convictions.

3 The complainant in respect of all three offences was Viviana Hanes. The first offence was committed between 8 and 9 pm on 9 January 1999 at 48 Proctor Way, Claymore. The second and third offences were committed between midnight and 1 am on 14 March 1999 at 6 Melliodora Way, Macquarie Fields.

4 The complainant first met the appellant on 31 January 1998 when she was staying with her parents at 52 Proctor Way, Claymore. The relationship developed and in February 1998 the complainant began residing with the appellant in his house in Parliament Road, Macquarie Fields.

5 In April 1998 the complainant became pregnant with the appellant's child. At some stage, and it is not clear when, because the complainant gave conflicting evidence in this respect, she moved out of the house in Parliament Road and eventually commenced living in a two-storey town house at 48 Proctor Way, Claymore. The reason for her moving out was that the appellant told her that his cousin, Christine Arpadjian, was coming to live with him.

6 Later the complainant discovered that Ms Arpadjian was not the appellant's cousin, and was the mother of a child of the appellant known as Domenique Junior.

7 While the complainant was living at 48 Proctor Way, the appellant brought Domenique Junior to her house where she looked after him. This occurred, according to her, every day. Domenique Junior was then about 18 months old. In December 1998 the complainant gave birth to a boy who was named Claude. Thereafter, she continued to reside in 48 Proctor Way with Claude. According to her, at that stage she was…

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 Najjarin

Details

AGLC: R v Najjarin [2001] NSWCCA 46
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 46
Decision Date: 1 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Najjarin, the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and appealed against the conviction. The dispute centred on whether the evidence presented in court was sufficient to support the verdict. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which had the authority to review the lower court's decision and determine if the conviction was justified.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court had to assess the credibility of the evidence presented and determine if it was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider whether the verdict was supported by the evidence and whether there were any errors in the trial that could have affected the outcome.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that the evidence was credible and that the verdict was supported by the evidence. The court also found that there were no errors in the trial that could have affected the outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction be upheld. The defendant was therefore found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court's decision was based on a careful review of the evidence and a consideration of the legal principles relevant to the case. The outcome of the appeal is an important reminder of the importance of ensuring that convictions are based on sufficient evidence and that the legal process is followed correctly.

Orders