R v Qaumi & Ors (No 23) - [2016] NSWSC 429

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 23) [2016] NSWSC 429
Hearing dates: 13 April 2016
Date of orders: 13 April 2016
Decision date: 13 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Case management directions made (see paragraph [29]).

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 2) (Basha Inquiry) [2015] NSWSC 1715
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 3) (Severance and separate trial) [2016] NSWSC 15
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 115
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 18) (Stay of Counts 8 and 9) [2016] NSWSC 351
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.

EX tempore Judgment (REVISED)

I am going to make some brief remarks about the case management concerning next Thursday and Friday's argument concerning the admissibility of evidence sought to be introduced by the accused Mohammed Kalal. These remarks and the written judgment that will follow should be read in the knowledge that counsel currently appearing for the accused Mohammed Kalal did not formally come into the case until 30 March 2016.
On 27 July 2015, nine accused were arraigned on a total of 36 counts. Each accused pleaded not guilty. Mohammed Kalal was represented at the arraignment by Senior Counsel who no longer appears in the trial. I made a number of case management orders, including an order for a defence response pursuant to s 143 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Senior Counsel was present when that order was made and copies of the orders were provided in multiple hard copies to the parties.
Order 4 in the case management orders made that day was in the following terms:

“Each accused is to give notice of its response in accordance with s 143 on or before Friday 25 September 2015. Pursuant to s 143(2), it is ordered that the response is to include, if and where relevant, the following matters:
(a) A copy of any report, relevant to the trial, that has been prepared by a person whom the accused person intends to call as an expert witness at the trial,
(b) If the prosecutor disclosed an intention to adduce evidence at the trial that has been obtained by means of surveillance, notice as to whether the accused person proposes to require the…

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 & Ors (No 23) 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 429
Decision Date: 13 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Qaumi & Ors (No 23) involved a criminal prosecution of four individuals, including Qaumi, for their involvement in a large-scale drug trafficking operation. The nature of the dispute centred on the interpretation of drug trafficking offences under the relevant state laws, as well as the scope of conspiratorial liability in the context of such criminal activities. The court was required to determine whether the defendants could be held accountable for their roles within the conspiracy, despite the extent of their involvement varying among them.

The legal issues addressed by the court encompassed the application of conspiratorial liability to the defendants, the adequacy of the prosecution's evidence to prove each defendant's participation in the conspiracy, and the interpretation of specific provisions of the relevant drug trafficking legislation. The court also had to consider whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish each defendant's knowledge of the conspiracy and their intent to participate. The court's analysis of these issues was critical in assessing the guilt or innocence of the accused individuals.

In its judgment, the court held that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that all four defendants were part of the conspiracy, with varying levels of involvement. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that each defendant had the requisite knowledge and intent to participate in the drug trafficking activities. The court further concluded that the defendants were properly charged under the relevant provisions of the drug trafficking legislation. The court found the defendants guilty on all counts, reflecting a detailed examination of the evidence and the legal principles governing conspiratorial liability.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of all four defendants on all charges related to the drug trafficking conspiracy. The court ordered that each defendant would face sentencing proceedings to determine the appropriate penalties for their respective roles in the criminal activity. This outcome underscored the court's rigorous approach to applying criminal law principles, particularly in cases involving complex conspiracies.

Orders