R v Semaan and Ors (Ruling 13) - [2016] VSC 668

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0127
S CR 2015 0124
S CR 2015 0125

THE QUEEN

ALEXANDER SEMAAN

HANNA SEMAAN

MEGAN BELJULJI

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 20–22, 25–29 July, 1–5, 10–12, 15–19, 22–25, 29, 31 August, 1-2, 5-6 September, 24, 28 October, 4 November 2016
DATE OF RULING:	8 November 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Semaan & Ors (Ruling 13)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 668

---

CRIMINAL LAW – No case submission on behalf of third accused in relation to Charge 3 – Attempting to pervert the court of justice – Whether crime scene had been altered – Whether accused knew or believed crime scene had been altered – Whether accused put police onto a false trail of evidence or participated in putting police onto a false trail of evidence – No case submission rejected (Ruling No 13).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams QC Mr N Hutton	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused A Semaan	Mr M Sharpley	Valos Black & Associates
For the Accused H Semaan	Mr J Kelly	Matthew White & Associates
For the Accused M Beljulji	Mr D Cronin	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Alex Semaan (Alex) is charged with murdering Michael Bekhazi on the night of 1 December 2014. Hanna Semaan (Hanna), Alex’s sister, and Megan Beuljulji (Megan), Alex’s girlfriend, are charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the criminal proceedings against Alex.

In relation to the first charge (murder), Tony Kanaan (Kanaan), a relative of Alex and Hanna, claims that he saw Alex shoot Bekhazi in the head at close range in the backyard of Alex’s home. He made a police statement to that effect on the night of the shooting.

Alex denies shooting Bekhazi. He claims that an unknown armed intruder tried to rob him in the bungalow. Alex says he struggled with the intruder who fired off two shots in the bungalow before he (Alex) passed out. Alex claims the intruder must have shot and killed Bekhazi in the backyard as he was making his escape.

Charge 2 alleges that between 2 December 2014 and 22 January 2015, Hanna and Megan attempted to ‘have Kanaan give a false statement to police regarding the death of Michael Bekhazi’.

Charge 3 alleges that during the same time period, Megan[1] attempted to pervert the course of justice by ‘putting police onto a false trail of evidence by having them re-examine the crime scene associated with the death of Michael Bekhazi which had been altered’. The alleged alteration to the crime scene was the creation, by a person or persons unknown, of bullet damage in the bungalow to support Alex’s story about the armed intruder who fired off two shots in the bungalow.
[1]Originally Charge 3 was also brought against Hanna Semaan but I dismissed that charge after finding that she had no case…

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 Semaan and Ors (Ruling 13) 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] VSC 668
Decision Date: 8 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard a case involving three accused individuals, Semaan, A and B, who were facing various criminal charges. The primary issue that came before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the third accused, Semaan, on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. This charge related to allegations that Semaan had altered a crime scene, was aware of the alteration, and misled the police by providing false evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a case to answer based on the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Semaan. This required the court to examine the evidence regarding the alleged alteration of the crime scene and Semaan's knowledge and actions in relation to this. The court had to consider whether the prosecution had demonstrated that Semaan had indeed attempted to pervert the course of justice by misleading the police and providing false evidence. This involved a detailed analysis of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case.

The court concluded that there was no case to answer regarding the charge against Semaan. The evidence presented did not support the allegations that Semaan had altered the crime scene or misled the police. The court found that the prosecution had not established the necessary elements of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Consequently, the no case submission made on behalf of Semaan was upheld, and the charge was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case.

Orders