R v Qaumi (No 58) - [2016] NSWSC 1066

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 58) [2016] NSWSC 1066
Hearing dates: 4 April – 18 August 2016 (evidence), 18 – 19 August 2016 (submissions)
Date of orders: 22 August 2016
Decision date: 22 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Applications by Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi for a directed verdict of not guilty on count 18 are refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for directed verdict – whether evidence capable of establishing charge – joint criminal enterprise – bungled enterprise – Little Crazy’s mother – gangland war – Brothers for Life – whether crime actually committed part of agreed criminal enterprise – where accused allegedly directed shooting of one townhouse – where shooter shoots a person and a different townhouse in the same townhouse complex – whether original criminal enterprise came to an end – where Crown case weak or tenuous – limited power to direct a verdict of not guilty
Cases Cited: Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207
McAuliffe v The Queen [1995] HCA 37; 183 CLR 108
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 57) [2016] NSWSC 1157
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 59) [2016] NSWSC 1159
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 60) [2016] NSWSC 1160
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Farhad Qaumi
Mumtaz Qaumi
Jamil Qaumi
Mohammed Zarshoy
Mohammed Kalal
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay & P Hogan (Crown)
J Stratton SC & M Curry (F Qaumi)
P Young SC (M Quami)
N Carroll(J Quami)
R Driels (Zarshoy)
G Clarke (Kalal)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP(Crown)
Archbold Legal (F Qaumi)
George Sten& Co (M Quami)
Bannisters Lawyers (J Quami)
Zahr Lawyers (Zarshoy)
Hallak Law (Kalal)

File Number(s): Farhad Quami - 2014/6809; 2014/315201; 2014/315252Mumtaz Quami – 2014/6813; 2014/315251; 2014/315260Jamil Quami - 2013/336086; 2014/18164; 2014315253Mohammad Zarshoy – 2014/316236Mohammad Kalal - 2013/344739; 2014/66939
Publication restriction: No publication until the conclusion of the trial.

Judgment

At the close of the prosecution case Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi submitted that the jury should be directed to return a verdict of not guilty in respect of count 18 which is in the following terms:

“On or about 29 November 2013, at Greenacre in the State of New South Wales, did, in the course of an organised criminal activity, fire a firearm at a dwelling house or other building with reckless disregard for the safety of others.”

The trial involves five accused charged, in various combinations, with a total of 24 offences and has been proceeding for well in excess of four months. There have been several other applications for directed verdicts and judgments in respect of each have been published at the same time as this judgment: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 57) [2016] NSWSC 1157; R v Qaumi & Ors (No 59) [2016] NSWSC 1159 and R v Qaumi & Ors…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Qaumi (No 58) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 1066
Decision Date: 22 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the defendant, Qaumi, was charged with murder as part of a joint criminal enterprise. The case involved a gangland war between rival groups, Brothers for Life and Little Crazy's mother, where Qaumi was alleged to have directed a shooting at a specific townhouse. The evidence presented by the Crown was tenuous, with a shooter hitting a different person and a different townhouse within the same complex. The legal issue was whether the evidence was capable of establishing the charge and if the original criminal enterprise had come to an end due to the bungled execution.
The court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the charge and if the crime was part of the agreed criminal enterprise. The court noted that the Crown's case was weak, and there was no clear evidence that the accused was involved in the planning or execution of the shooting. The court also considered whether the crime had actually been committed as part of the agreed criminal enterprise. The court held that the limited power to direct a verdict of not guilty should not be exercised where the Crown case was weak or tenuous. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charge, and a directed verdict of not guilty was appropriate.
The court directed a verdict of not guilty for the defendant on the charge of murder. The court found that the Crown's case was weak and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the charge. The court held that the limited power to direct a verdict of not guilty should only be exercised where the Crown case was weak or tenuous, and in this case, the evidence was insufficient to establish the charge. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged crime but held that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction. The court directed a verdict of not guilty for the defendant on the charge of murder.

Orders