R v Skaf - [2001] NSWCCA 199

CITATION: Regina v Skaf [2001] NSWCCA 199

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60806/99

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 23 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Jehad Skaf

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Simpson J at 42; McClellan J at 43

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0366

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nield DCJ

COUNSEL : P.G. Berman SC (Crown)
S.J. Rushton SC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - COMPENSATION ORDER - CONVICTION - APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS - LOSS TO VICTIM - ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OR REASONS - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION

LEGISLATION CITED: Victims Compensation Act 1996
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996

CASES CITED:
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Burgess v Boetefeur (1844) 7 Man & G
Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257
Hinton v The Queen [2000] FCA 1019
R v Jerome & McMahon 1964 Qd R 595
Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666

DECISION: Appeal against sentence allowed in part; Orders for payment of compensation quashed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60806/99

GROVE J
SIMPSON J
McCLELLAN J

Wednesday 23 May 2001

REGINA v JEHAD SKAF

JUDGMENT

1    GROVE J : On 29 September 1999 the appellant was arraigned before his Honour Judge Nield at Parramatta District Court upon an indictment containing three counts charging first, that on 13 November 1997 he uttered a false birth certificate in the name of Ahmet Oz, knowing it to be false; second that on 3 December 1997 at Parramatta he used an instrument namely a learner’s drivers licence in the name of Ahmet Oz which he knew to be false with the intention of inducing someone to accept that instrument as genuine and because of that acceptance to register a BMW motor vehicle to that other or to another person’s prejudice, and third, that on 22 December 1997 at Lidcombe he used the learner’s drivers licence in the name of Ahmet Oz which he knew to be false with the intention of inducing someone to accept it as genuine and issue a replacement certificate of registration for the BMW motor vehicle mentioned in the previous count.

2 He asked that two further offences be taken into account pursuant to s21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1996. These offences charged that on or about 5 January 1998 the appellant was accessory before the fact to the disposal of the BMW motor vehicle mentioned in the indictment and that on 5 June 1998 he was in possession of a false instrument (a driver’s licence in the name of Mohamed Beyrouthi).
3    A record of proceedings on 29 September 1999, signed and dated by his Honour includes the following:

“Indictment presented.

Accused arraigned.

Plea: each count - guilty.

Prisoner admits additional offences on Form 1.

Criminal Procedure Act document.

Sentencing stood over to 9.30 am 19/11/99.”

4    Further notations refer to obtaining a report from Probation…

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 Skaf

Details

AGLC: Regina v Skaf [2001] NSWCCA 199
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 199
Decision Date: 23 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Skaf involved the accused, Skaf, who was convicted of murder. The dispute centred on the imposition of a compensation order under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic). The Court of Appeal heard the matter, tasked with assessing whether the trial judge erred in making the compensation order without adequate findings or reasons regarding the loss suffered by the victim. Skaf argued that the trial judge's failure to make specific findings on the loss and causation amounted to a procedural error, which undermined the fairness and legality of the sentence.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge's omission to make explicit findings and reasons about the loss to the victim and the causation of that loss constituted a material procedural error. The court considered whether these omissions rendered the compensation order invalid or if the evidence was sufficient to uphold the order despite the procedural shortcomings. The court had to balance the requirements of procedural fairness against the substantial evidence presented regarding the victim's loss and the impact of the crime.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's failure to make specific findings and reasons did not necessarily invalidate the compensation order. The court reasoned that the trial judge had before them substantial evidence of the victim's loss and the causative link between the crime and that loss. The court concluded that while the lack of specific findings and reasons was a procedural irregularity, it did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the compensation order was unjust or unlawful. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the trial judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the compensation order, determining that the trial judge's procedural error did not affect the substantive justice of the outcome. The court held that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the order, and the procedural irregularity did not undermine the fairness of the sentencing process. The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation order remained in place.

Orders