R v Sadeed - [2004] QCA 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sadeed [2004] QCA 32

PARTIES:

R
v
SADEED, Sayed Esaq

(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 190 of 2003

DC No 3546 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and McPherson and Williams JJA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACTS – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERALLY - where appellant found guilty of various counts of forgery, uttering, and fraud – whether evidence of uncharged acts was admissible to establish a pattern of conduct and therefore the existence of guilty mind on part of appellant – whether evidence of uncharged acts admissible as circumstantial evidence that appellant guilty of the offences charged

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – FORGERY AND UTTERING – where appellant sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years for each of four counts of forgery and four counts of uttering contrary to s 67(b) Crimes Act1914 (Cth), to be served concurrently – whether sentence within range

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 67(b)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(a)

R v Bond [1906] 2 KB 389, considered
R v Finlayson (1912) 14 CLR 675, applied
R v Gray (1866) 4 F & F 1102; 176 ER 924, considered
Makin v Attorney-General (NSW) [1894] AC 57, considered

Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, followed

COUNSEL:

G P Long for the appellant/applicant

J R Hunter for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with McPherson JA that the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons he gives.

McPHERSON JA: The appellant Sayed Esaq Sadeed was convicted after a trial lasting 23 days in the District Court at Brisbane of four counts of forgery and four counts of uttering contrary to s 67(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); together with a further two counts (nos 5 and 6) of fraud contrary to s 408C(1) of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced on each count to imprisonment for four years on each of the federal offences and to terms of two years or less for the other two, all to be served concurrently, with a non-parole period of two years. This appeal against his conviction is accompanied by an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The charges all arose directly or indirectly out of the operation of the Motor Vehicles Standards Act 1989 (Cth), which is designed to regulate and enforce uniform national standards for vehicles that are to be used in Australia. The Act and…

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 Sadeed

Details

AGLC: R v Sadeed [2004] QCA 32
Case: [2004] QCA 32
Decision Date: 20 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sadeed, the appellant was convicted of various counts of forgery, uttering, and fraud. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of evidence of uncharged acts of forgery and fraud, which were alleged to demonstrate a pattern of conduct by the appellant and the existence of a guilty mind. Additionally, the court examined whether this evidence could be considered circumstantial evidence of the appellant's guilt in the charged offences. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the admissibility of evidence of similar facts under the common law principles of evidence, and whether such evidence could be used to establish a pattern of conduct and the existence of a guilty mind. The court also considered whether evidence of uncharged acts could be admitted as circumstantial evidence of the charged offences. These issues were critical in determining the appellant's conviction and sentence.

The High Court held that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence of uncharged acts, as it was relevant to establishing the appellant's intention and knowledge in the charged offences. The court found that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of conduct and was admissible as circumstantial evidence. The Court also determined that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range, considering the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant's convictions and sentences were upheld, affirming the trial judge's decision on both the admissibility of the evidence and the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Sadeed [2004] QCA 32
PARTIES:	R v SADEED, Sayed Esaq (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 190 of 2003 DC No 3546 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and McPherson and Williams JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACTS – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERALLY - where appellant found guilty of various counts of forgery, uttering, and fraud – whether evidence of uncharged acts was admissible to establish a pattern of conduct and therefore the existence of guilty mind on part of appellant – whether evidence of uncharged acts admissible as circumstantial evidence that appellant guilty of the offences charged CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – FORGERY AND UTTERING – where appellant sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years for each of four counts of forgery and four counts of uttering contrary to s 67(b) Crimes Act1914 (Cth), to be served concurrently – whether sentence within range Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 67(b) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(a) R v Bond [1906] 2 KB 389, considered R v Finlayson (1912) 14 CLR 675, applied R v Gray (1866) 4 F & F 1102; 176 ER 924, considered Makin v Attorney-General (NSW) [1894] AC 57, considered Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, followed
COUNSEL:	G P Long for the appellant/applicant J R Hunter for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent