Legal Research
Cases
R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 4)

R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 4)

Link copied

Case Copied 25 July 2025 54 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 824
Hearing dates: 22 July 2025
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
It is open to the Crown to run its case on extended joint criminal enterprise principles in this matter.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – pre-trial ruling – joint trial – charges of murder and assault with intent to rob, with wounding and armed – whether the Crown can advance a case of extended joint enterprise – where the Crown cannot prove which of the two participants in the joint criminal enterprise is the principal offender

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 98
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7(1)(a), (d)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 11, s 12A

Cases Cited:
Baker v Smith [2021] QCA 66
Batak v The King [2024] NSWCCA 66
Blundell v R [2019] NSWCCA 3
Carbone v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 318
Carlyle-Watson v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 226
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman (2023) 278 CLR 165; [2023] HCA 21
Clayton v The Queen [2006] HCA 58; 168 A Crim R 174
Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 112
Fan v The King [2024] NSWCCA 114
Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 64
IL v The Queen (2017) 262 CLR 268; [2017] HCA 27
Jaghbir v R [2023] NSWCCA 175
Johns v The Queen (1980) 143 CLR 108; [1980] HCA 3
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; [1995] HCA 37
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380; [2016] HCA 30
Mitchell v The Queen (2023) 276 CLR 299; [2023] HCA 5
Mohan v The Queen [1967] 2 AC 187
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75
R v Batak [2025] HCA 18; 99 ALJR 820
R v DJD [2023] NSWSC 222
R v Jogee [2017] AC 387; [2016] UKSC 8
R v Lowery & King (No 2) [1972] VR 560
R v Phan (2001) 53 NSWLR 480; [2001] NSWCCA 29
R v Walsh [2002] VSCA 98; 131 A Crim R 299
Robertson v R [2024] NSWCCA 99

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Danny Stephen (Accused)
Tony Phillip Tadrosse (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr E Balodis (Crown)
Mr K Prince (Accused Stephen)
Ms M Avenell SC (Accused Tadrosse)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
City Group Legal (Accused Stephen)
Crimcorp Defence Lawyers (Accused Tadrosse)

File Number(s): 2023/00116714
2023/00116875
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

Tony Tadrosse and Danny Stephen both stand charged with two counts:

Count 1: The murder of Kalim Saliba (contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)): and
Count 2: The assault with intent to rob of Shahidy Saliba with wounding whilst being armed (contrary to s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).

Their trial is listed to commence before…

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 Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 4) 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: [2025] NSWSC 824
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two defendants, Stephen and Tadrosse, who were jointly charged with various serious offences, including murder, assault with intent to rob, and armed robbery. The joint trial was held in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendants faced allegations of their involvement in a violent crime. The case revolved around the application of the extended joint enterprise doctrine, particularly whether the Crown could proceed with a case based on this doctrine when it could not definitively identify which of the two defendants was the principal offender.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown could rely on the extended joint enterprise doctrine to secure a conviction where it was unable to determine which of the two participants in a joint criminal enterprise was the principal offender. The court was required to assess whether the Crown's case could proceed under these circumstances, given the inability to identify the principal offender. This issue was crucial as it determined the admissibility of the joint enterprise evidence and the potential for a conviction based on the joint criminal enterprise doctrine.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the extended joint enterprise doctrine and the necessity for the Crown to identify the principal offender. The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the Crown could proceed with a case based on the extended joint enterprise doctrine even if it could not definitively prove which of the two participants was the principal offender. The court reasoned that the key factor was the shared criminal intent and the mutual understanding between the participants, rather than the specific role of each individual. The court concluded that the evidence of joint enterprise was admissible and could support a conviction against both defendants, provided the Crown could establish the joint criminal enterprise and the defendants' participation therein.

The final orders of the court allowed the Crown to proceed with the trial based on the extended joint enterprise doctrine, despite the inability to identify the principal offender. The court's decision emphasised the importance of shared criminal intent and mutual understanding in joint criminal enterprises, and it set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Orders