R v Succarieh (No 3) - [2016] QSC 245

[2016] QSC 245

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ATKINSON J
Indictment No 139 of 2016
THE QUEEN
v.
OMAR SUCCARIEH
BRISBANE
11.29 AM, THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2016
RULING
RESTRICTED ACCESS TRANSCRIPT

HER HONOUR: The defence has applied for the exclusion of certain evidence, being a video which the defendant viewed on the internet on 9 March 2014. The video appears to be a propaganda video of the preparation for, the carrying out of and the aftermath of what appears to be a suicide bombing. It appears on the video that it was carried out by a person on behalf of Jabhat Al-Nusra, described in the video as the Al-Nusra Front, and the words spoken and sung support an inference that the propaganda intention of the video was to support violent struggle or violent jihad. Evidence is intended to be led to identify the voice of the person who appears to be a suicide bomber, but his face is obscured. Evidence is intended to be led to show that the voice of the person who purports to be the suicide bomber is the voice of a brother of the defendant.

The defence argues that the evidence has limited probative value, and that its prejudicial nature is such that it should be excluded. There is quite properly no argument that the evidence is not admissible on the basis that it is irrelevant. It is clearly relevant. So the first question is whether or not the evidence has limited probative value.

The defence argument is that it can only go to prove an element in count 4, where the acts alleged post-dated the watching of the video, and that alternative inferences are open apart from the inference which the prosecution will seek the jury to draw, that is, that the watching of the video shows the state of mind of the defendant and his support for the actions which purport to be undertaken and the reason for those actions in the video; those alternative inferences being a concern for the fact that it purports to show the defendant’s brother.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argues that the evidence has significant probative value; that it is capable, when combined with other evidence, of showing the defendant’s state of mind and thus his intention during the period in which each of the offences alleged on the indictment took place, whether or not it was viewed before or after the particular acts which are the physical acts alleged against the defendant. The prosecution argues that intent is relevant for all counts, and that it is relevant to the intent which it says exists in each of the counts and of the motive of the defendant.

In my view, the evidence is not only relevant, but it is significantly probative as part of the complete story of the evidence which together is relevant to showing the intent of the defendant. It is capable of supporting the inferences which the prosecution will seek the jury to…

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 Succarieh (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Succarieh (No 3) [2016] QSC 245
Case: [2016] QSC 245
Decision Date: 4 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Succarieh (No 3) involved the defendant, Succarieh, who was facing criminal charges. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the focus was on the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during the investigation. The nature of the dispute revolved around whether the evidence, which was seized without a warrant, should be excluded from the trial due to alleged breaches of legal standards pertaining to the search and seizure process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained during the search should be excluded under the common law rule that evidence obtained through illegal means should not be admitted. Succarieh argued that the police had acted without a warrant, and therefore, the evidence should not be admissible. The court had to determine if the police conduct met the legal standards required for a lawful search and seizure, and whether any exceptions to the warrant requirement applied in this case.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained. The court considered whether the police had reasonable grounds to conduct the search without a warrant, and whether any exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances, applied. The court concluded that the police had acted lawfully and that there were sufficient grounds to conduct the search without a warrant. Consequently, the court refused the application to exclude the evidence, holding that it was admissible in the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Accordingly I refuse the application to exclude the evidence.

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.