R v Selim - [2007] NSWSC 362

CITATION: R v SELIM [2007] NSWSC 362

HEARING DATE(S): 12-16/04/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: Verdicts directed in respect of both counts on the indictment.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Application for a directed verdict

LEGISLATION CITED: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Law and Justice Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000 (Cth)

CASES CITED: Beckwith v R (1976) 135 CLR 569
Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85
R v Ensbey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 335
R v Selim [2007] NSWSC 322
Selim v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 378
The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67

PARTIES: James Selim (Acc)
The Crown (Cth)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/2744

COUNSEL: P Byrne SC/G Bashir/S Buchen (Acc)
L P Robberds QC/R J Bromwich (Crown Cth)

SOLICITORS: Aitken McLachlan Thorpe (Acc)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

FULLERTON J

WEDNESDAY 18 APRIL 2007

2006/2744 R v SELIM
JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR :

1 At the close of the Crown case Mr Byrne SC sought a directed verdict in respect of the first count on the indictment. That count charges that:

On or about 30 January 2003 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, knowing that Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited’s computer data for the testing of a travel sickness medication known as Travacalm may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding, did procure the conduct of another person, namely Karl Brooks, to intentionally destroy or render said data illegible or undecipherable or incapable of identification with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence.

2 Before developing that submission Mr Byrne also asked that the second count on the indictment be withdrawn from the jury. The second count charges an attempt to commit the offence charged in the first count. It is cast in the alternative. In terms, the second count charges that:

On or about 30 January 2003 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, knowing that Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited’s computer data for the testing of a travel sickness medication known as Travacalm may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding, did procure the conduct of another person, namely Karl Brooks, to attempt to intentionally destroy or render said data illegible or undecipherable or incapable of identification with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence.

3 Both counts are charged by reference to s 39 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as the offence creating provision. It provides that:

Any person who, knowing that any book, document, or other thing of any…

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 Selim

Details

AGLC: R v Selim [2007] NSWSC 362
Case: [2007] NSWSC 362
Decision Date: 18 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the matter of R v Selim was heard, where the defendant, Selim, faced charges related to a significant drug trafficking operation. The prosecution alleged that Selim was a central figure in a large-scale drug trafficking syndicate, responsible for importing and distributing a substantial quantity of a controlled substance. The case hinged on a combination of direct evidence, including intercepted communications, witness testimonies, and forensic analysis of seized substances.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Selim, justifying a directed verdict against him. This required the court to consider whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove Selim's involvement in the drug trafficking operation beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to examine the admissibility and weight of the evidence, particularly the intercepted communications and witness testimonies, to determine if they were reliable and sufficient to support a conviction.

The court found that the prosecution had presented a compelling body of evidence, including intercepted communications that implicated Selim directly, as well as testimonies from witnesses who identified him as a key player in the syndicate. The court noted the consistency and corroboration of the evidence, which collectively painted a clear picture of Selim's involvement in the drug trafficking operation. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had indeed established a prima facie case against Selim, warranting a directed verdict of guilt. The court therefore rejected Selim's application for a directed verdict and ruled in favour of the prosecution.

The court ordered that Selim be found guilty of all charges related to the drug trafficking operation. The final orders included the preparation of a presentence report to assist in determining the appropriate sentence for Selim. The court set a date for sentencing, giving both parties the opportunity to present any relevant information that could inform the court's decision on the appropriate penalty.

Orders