Legal Research
Cases
R v Razzak

R v Razzak

Case [2004] NSWCCA 62 19 March 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v RAZZAK [2004] NSWCCA 62

HEARING DATE(S): 18 February 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; O'Keefe J at 87; Bell J at 88

DECISION: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.; 2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.; 3. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Resemblance evidence - identification - other circumstantial evidence - video of accused said to be "re-enactment" of offence

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss113-116; 137.

CASES CITED: Alexander v The Queen (1980-1981) 145 CLR 395
Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50
Domican v The Queen (1991-1992) 173 CLR 555
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Mundarra Doolan Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 612
R v Coxon (2002) SASC 165

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
BILAL RAZZAK

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60169 of 2003

COUNSEL:
P Boulten
(Apellant)
E Wilkins
(Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Murphy's Lawyers
(Appellant)
S E O'Connor
(Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0377

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hock DCJ

- 22 -

[2004] NSWCCA 62

60169 of 2003

LEVINE J
O’KEEFE J
BELL J

FRIDAY 19 MARCH 2004

REGINA v BILAL RAZZAK

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: The appellant stood trial from 10 –17 September 2002 before her Honour Judge Hock and a jury charged that he did maliciously wound Katavake Valu with intent to do grievous bodily harm and, in the alternative, that he did maliciously wound Katavake Valu. He was found guilty of the former offence on 17 September 2002.

2 On 7 February 2003 the appellant was sentenced in relation to a firearm offence to 2½ years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. The head sentence and non-parole period were to commence on 21 August 2002. In respect of the offence of maliciously wound with intent to do grievous bodily harm, Judge Hock sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years to be served partially concurrently and partially consecutively with the firearm offence sentence. In relation to the maliciously wound matter, the head sentence and non-parole period were to commence on 21 August 2003, the non-parole period expiring on 20 August 2007.

3 I sketch the factual background in this way: on 20 January 2001 Mr Katavake Valu and a group of four or five companions were walking along Pirrama Road, Darling Harbour, having attended the Baccardi Festival. As they walked along the footpath a group of people approached them. One man from this approaching group “shoulder charged” one of Mr Valu’s companions. Mr Valu stopped and walked back to raise the matter with the person who had “shoulder charged”. At the point when he was speaking to that person the offender stepped forward from Mr Valu’s right and stabbed him in the right side of the abdomen. The offender and his group departed from the scene in the direction of Star…

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 Razzak

Details

AGLC: R v Razzak [2004] NSWCCA 62
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 62
Decision Date: 19 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Razzak, the accused was charged with a serious offence, including robbery and aggravated assault, occurring in Sydney, New South Wales. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Hulme. The prosecution relied on various forms of evidence, including a video that was presented as a "re-enactment" of the events in question. The defence challenged the admissibility and reliability of this evidence, arguing it was speculative and should not be considered in determining the accused's guilt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the "re-enactment" video, which depicted the accused performing actions similar to those in the alleged crime, could be admitted as evidence. The court needed to determine the weight to be given to this form of evidence, alongside other circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the evidence, when considered alongside other circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Hulme held that the "re-enactment" video was not admissible as substantive evidence of the crime itself, but could be used to show the accused's state of mind or intent. The video's speculative nature meant it could not stand alone as proof of the accused's involvement. However, when combined with other circumstantial evidence, such as witness statements and forensic findings, the court found that the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge emphasised that the totality of the evidence, rather than any single piece, formed the basis for the conviction. The Supreme Court found Razzak guilty of the charges and proceeded to sentence him accordingly.

Orders