R v Omar Succarieh - [2017] QDC 73

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Omar Succarieh [2017] QDC 73

PARTIES:

R

v

SUCCARIEH, Omar (defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2272/15

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Judge-Alone

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2017 – 24 February 2017

JUDGE:

Devereaux SC DCJ

VERDICT:

Guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – EXTORTION AND LIKE OFFENCES – EXTORTION OR DEMANDING WITH MENANCES – GENERALLY – trial by judge sitting without a jury – where the accused was charged with extortion - where the defendant gave evidence of a belief that the complainant owed money to a third party - whether there was a debt owed - whether s.24 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) engaged – whether the defendant reasonably believed there to be a debt - whether reasonable cause for the demand was excluded beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – EXTORTION AND LIKE OFFENCES – EXTORTION OR DEMANDING WITH MENANCES – REASONABLE OR PROBABLE CAUSE – where the prosecution alleged several threats were made – whether the threats were made - whether reasonable cause for the demand is assessed with reference only to the demand and without reference to the nature of any threats

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s.24, s. 415 s. 644

Larceny Act 1916 (UK) s.29

Theft Act 1968 (UK) s.21

Hardie & Lane Ltd v. Chilton [1928] 2 K.B. 306

Kelly, Baker and Perry [Nos. 144, 155 and 147 of 1991, unreported, 29 August 1991]

R v Campbell [1997] QCA 127

R v Craig (1903) 29 VLR 28

R v Dymond [1920] 2 KB 260

Reg. v Hamilton 1 C. & K. 212

R vJohnson and Edwards [1981] Qd R 440

R v Lacey & Lacey [2011] QCA 386

R vRobertson [1993] QCA 514

Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797

COUNSEL:

Mr M. B. Lehane for the Crown

Mr S. C. Holt QC for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

Anderson Fredericks Turner for the Defendant

The accused is charged as follows:

“That between the tenth day of March 2014 and the twenty-sixth day of March, 2014, at Brisbane city and elsewhere in the State of Queensland, he demanded a sum of money, without reasonable cause, with intent to gain a benefit for Yousef Masri[1] threatened to cause a detriment to Vasilios Pippos.”

[1]Although it would read better if the word ‘and’ were inserted here, the charge follows the form in the Criminal Practice Rules.

He has pleaded Not Guilty. On 6 February 2017 Judge Clare SC ordered the trial to proceed without a jury.

In the result, I am to determine, on the evidence, whether the accused is guilty.

The evidence comprised testimony of Mr Pippos, who was referred to as the complainant, and several police officers for the Crown. Mr Succarieh gave evidence. The prosecution tendered recorded telephone conversations and 3 SMS messages. The defendant formally admitted, pursuant to Criminal…

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 Omar Succarieh

Details

AGLC: R v Omar Succarieh [2017] QDC 73
Case: [2017] QDC 73
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Omar Succarieh was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The defendant, Omar Succarieh, was charged with extortion under section 24 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions amounted to extortion, specifically whether there was a reasonable belief on his part that a debt was owed, and if so, whether this belief excluded reasonable cause for the demand. The central issue revolved around the defendant's testimony that he believed the complainant owed money to a third party, which he sought to recover.

The court needed to ascertain whether the defendant genuinely held this belief and if it was reasonable for him to demand payment under that belief. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had no reasonable cause for making the demand, particularly in light of the alleged threats made during the demand. The legal question also encompassed whether the assessment of reasonable cause should consider the nature of the threats or be confined solely to the demand itself.

The District Court found that the defendant's belief that a debt was owed was not reasonable, and thus, there was no reasonable cause for his demand. The court determined that the threats made during the demand were relevant to assessing whether there was reasonable cause. It was concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had no reasonable cause for making the demand, as his belief was not genuinely held. The defendant was found guilty of extortion. The court ordered the defendant to serve a custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offence.

Orders