R v Succarieh

Case [2017] QCA 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Succarieh [2017] QCA 282

PARTIES:

R
v
SUCCARIEH, Omar
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 88 of 2017
CA No 119 of 2017
DC No 2272 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2017] QDC 73; Date of Sentence: 22 May 2017 (Devereaux SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of extortion by a judge sitting without a jury – where the appellant gave evidence of a belief that the complainant owed money to a third party – where the prosecution alleged several threats were made against the complainant, including threats to take over the complainant’s business, bring the demands to the attention of the complainant’s wife and daughter and cause physical injury to the complainant – where the appellant denied the threat to cause physical injury – whether it was reasonably open to the learned trial judge to conclude that the appellant’s belief as to indebtedness was not based on reasonable grounds – whether it was reasonably open to the learned trial judge to have rejected the appellant’s denial of the threat to cause physical injury to the complainant – whether the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – EXTORTION AND LIKE OFFENCES – EXTORTION OR DEMANDING WITH MENACES – REASONABLE OR PROBABLE CAUSE – where the appellant claims he had a reasonable and honest belief that a debt was owed by the complainant and he was authorised to collect it – where some of the threats allegedly made by the appellant were unlawful – where s 415(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) states that a person who, without reasonable cause, makes a demand with intent to gain a benefit for any person and with a threat to cause a detriment, commits a crime – where the appellant submits that, as a matter of law, the phrase “without reasonable cause” applies only to the demand itself and not to the alleged threat – whether the learned trial judge erred in finding the scope of the phrase “without reasonable cause” extends to the detriment threatened

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment – where the applicant was already serving a sentence for four years and six months’ imprisonment for Commonwealth offences to which he pleaded guilty – where the parole eligibility date for the subject offending is eight months after the parole eligibility date for the Commonwealth offending – where the combination of the two…

Continue reading R v Succarieh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Succarieh [2017] QCA 282
Case
[2017] QCA 282
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Succarieh, the appellant was convicted of extortion by a judge sitting without a jury. The appellant was found guilty of making several threats against the complainant, including threats to take over the complainant’s business, bring the demands to the attention of the complainant’s wife and daughter and cause physical injury to the complainant. The appellant denied the threat to cause physical injury and gave evidence of a belief that the complainant owed money to a third party. The court was required to determine whether it was reasonably open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant's belief as to indebtedness was not based on reasonable grounds and whether it was reasonably open to the trial judge to have rejected the appellant's denial of the threat to cause physical injury.

The court found that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. It was reasonably open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant's belief as to indebtedness was not based on reasonable grounds. The court also found that it was reasonably open to the trial judge to have rejected the appellant's denial of the threat to cause physical injury to the complainant. The court found that the scope of the phrase "without reasonable cause" in s 415(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) extends to the detriment threatened. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The court also considered the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment for the subject offending. The appellant was already serving a sentence for four years and six months’ imprisonment for Commonwealth offences to which he pleaded guilty. The court found that the requirement to serve almost 70 per cent of the combined sentences did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. The court found that it was not necessary for the learned sentencing judge to explain why the sentence was imposed with that result.

Orders:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.