R v Qaumi & Ors (No 55) - [2016] NSWSC 1068

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 55) [2016] NSWSC 1068
Hearing dates: 1, 2 and 3 August 2016
Date of orders: 02 February 0003
Decision date: 08 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
1. Allow limited legal arguments to proceed in the absence of the accused.
2. Adjourn the trial until Monday 8 August 2016.
3. Direct the Sheriff and Corrective Services to construct a wall within the dock to separate three of the accused from the other two accused.
4. Direct Corrective Services Officers to put in place Perspex screen separating the dock from the courtroom when the jury is not present.
5. Direct Corrective Services Officers to remove the Perspex screen when the jury is present.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – violence in courtroom – violence between accused in the dock – whether legal argument should be heard in absence of the accused – application by accused to be separated from co-accused – need to ensure physical safety of the accused – need to ensure psychological wellbeing of those in the courtroom – possible alternatives – audio visual E-dock – construction of barrier in existing dock – application by Crown to place Perspex screen in front of dock to separate accused from the courtroom – prejudicial impact – no indication that accused will attempt to leave the dock – escalation of misbehaviour of accused – balancing interests of accused with psychological safety of those in court
Cases Cited: Jamal v R [2012] NSWCCA198
Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors (No 41) [2008] NSWSC 1462
R v Benbrika & Ors (Ruling No 12) 2007 VSC 524
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 8) (Variation of Non-publication Orders) [2016] NSWSC 184
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 23) [2016] NSWSC 429
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 505
R v AC (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 404
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 39) [2016] NSWSC 797
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 42) [2016] NSWSC 887
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 43) [2016] NSWSC 889
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 44) [2016] NSWSC 936
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 45) [2016] NSWSC 937
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 54) [2016] NSWSC 1067
Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 286
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

This judgment exposes the reasons…

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 55) 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 1068
Decision Date: 08 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Qaumi & Ors (No 55), the accused were facing criminal charges before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around the escalating violence between the accused in the courtroom dock, which posed a risk to the physical safety of the accused and the psychological wellbeing of those present. The court was required to determine whether the legal arguments should proceed in the absence of the accused and whether there were feasible alternatives to ensure safety and maintain the integrity of the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the accused should be separated from each other during the trial and if the Crown's application to place a Perspex screen in front of the dock to separate the accused from the courtroom was appropriate. The court considered the need to balance the interests of the accused, including their right to a fair trial, against the potential prejudicial impact on the accused and the psychological safety of those in the courtroom. The court also evaluated whether there were other alternatives, such as an audio-visual E-dock or constructing a barrier in the existing dock, to manage the accused's behaviour without compromising the trial's fairness.

The court determined that the accused should be separated from each other and that the Crown's application to place a Perspex screen in front of the dock was reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that there was no indication the accused would attempt to leave the dock, but the escalating misbehaviour necessitated immediate action to ensure safety. The court also concluded that the potential prejudicial impact on the accused was outweighed by the need to protect the psychological wellbeing of those in the courtroom. The court ordered that the accused be separated during the trial and that a Perspex screen be placed in front of the dock to facilitate this.

Orders