R v Qaumi and Qaumi (No 12)
Case
•
[2017] NSWSC 134
•28 February 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Qaumi and Qaumi (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 134
[2017] NSWSC 134
28 February 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Qaumi and Qaumi (No 12), the court was presented with a case of murder involving a contract killing orchestrated by the accused, members of the Brothers for Life gang. The deceased was a subject of a contract killing arranged through informant witnesses. The legal issues before the court included the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence provided by informants, the connection between the accused and the crime, and the admissibility of evidence in relation to the movement of the murder weapon after the crime was committed.
The court determined that the evidence provided by the informants, while circumstantial, was supported by other evidence such as surveillance footage and telephone intercepts. There were connections and meetings between the accused and the participants in the crime, including the accused meeting with the driver and shooter two hours before the killing, and evidence of a reconnaissance of the victim's house five days before the shooting. The court found that the evidence of the informants was sufficiently supported by other evidence and that the inferences available from the evidence were sufficient to convict the accused.
The court also found that the evidence of the movement of the murder weapon was admissible to establish a connection with the murder weapon, but not to prove consciousness of guilt. The court held that the evidence was admissible against both accused as it was part of a joint criminal enterprise and the act was done in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. The court further held that the evidence that may be unreliable, such as hearsay evidence, should be treated with caution, and a warning should be given that the evidence may be unreliable. However, the court held that the warning should be tempered where the evidence is favourable to the accused. The court found that the Crown had excluded beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was unreliable.
The final orders of the court were that both accused were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.
The court determined that the evidence provided by the informants, while circumstantial, was supported by other evidence such as surveillance footage and telephone intercepts. There were connections and meetings between the accused and the participants in the crime, including the accused meeting with the driver and shooter two hours before the killing, and evidence of a reconnaissance of the victim's house five days before the shooting. The court found that the evidence of the informants was sufficiently supported by other evidence and that the inferences available from the evidence were sufficient to convict the accused.
The court also found that the evidence of the movement of the murder weapon was admissible to establish a connection with the murder weapon, but not to prove consciousness of guilt. The court held that the evidence was admissible against both accused as it was part of a joint criminal enterprise and the act was done in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. The court further held that the evidence that may be unreliable, such as hearsay evidence, should be treated with caution, and a warning should be given that the evidence may be unreliable. However, the court held that the warning should be tempered where the evidence is favourable to the accused. The court found that the Crown had excluded beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was unreliable.
The final orders of the court were that both accused were found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Expert Evidence
-
Hearsay Evidence
-
Contempt of Court
-
Circumstantial Evidence
-
Joint Criminal Enterprise
-
Co-Conspirators Rule
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Baker (Ruling No 6) [2023] VSC 198
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Tipping v The King (No 2)
[2023] SASCA 17
R v Sultani
[2023] NSWSC 645
R v Abdaly; R v Hosseinishoja (No 3)
[2022] NSWSC 1511
Cases Cited
29
Statutory Material Cited
3
Miller v The Queen
[2016] HCA 30
Likiardopoulos v The Queen
[2012] HCA 37
Likiardopoulos v The Queen
[2012] HCA 37