R v Yammine and Chami - [2002] NSWCCA 289

Reported Decision:
(2002) 132 A Crim R 44

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Yammine & Chami [2002] NSWCCA 289

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60562/01; 60563/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Youssef Yammine
Regina v Walid Chami

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Studdert J at 2; Bell J at 84

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/0296
00/21/0297

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Armitage DCJ

COUNSEL : R.A. Herps (Crown)
G. Nicholson QC/B.W. Cross (Yammine)
B.W. Walker SC/G.A. Bashir (Chami)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
Susan N. Goodsell (Yammine)
Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Chami)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - trial by jury - testimony of Crown witness - issue of credibility - necessity for warning - whether warning given sufficient - Evidence Act, s.165. CRIMINAL LAW - trial by jury - introduction by Crown Prosecutor of assessment of credibility of Crown witness attributed to judge (other than trial judge) who had earlier sentenced the witness - whether resulting miscarriage. CRIMINAL LAW - trial by jury - whether verdict on each count unsafe and unsatisfactory.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Rules
Evidence Act

CASES CITED:
R v Stewart (2000-2001) 52 NSWLR 301
R v Vo [2001] NSWCCA 67
R v Clout (1995) 41 NSWLR 312
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 130 ALR 35
R v Siebel & Anor (1991) 59 A Crim R 105
R v McDonald (1984) 1NSWLR 428
R v Fedler (1989) 42 A Crim R 5
R v Stevens [2001] NSWCCA 330
R v Reardon & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 203

DECISION: Each appeal allowed; convictions of each appellant and sentences imposed on each appellant quashed; new trials ordered.

60562/01
60563/01

HODGSON JA
STUDDERT J
BELL J
Tuesday 23 July 2002

REGINA v YOUSSEF YAMMINE

REGINA v WALID CHAMI

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Studdert J.

2 STUDDERT J: Youssef Yammine and Walid Chami stood trial in the District Court before his Honour Judge Armitage QC and jury on an indictment charging each with a number of offences, namely:

(i) that between 10 March 1999 and 29 March 1999 they supplied a prohibited drug, namely heroin;

(ii) that in the same period they supplied another prohibited drug, namely cocaine;

(iii) that on 27 March 1999 they detained Jaimie Byrne with intent to hold him for advantage;

(iv) that on the same date they used an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely assault;

3 The jury found each of the appellants guilty on all counts, and each of them was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

4 Each appellant appeals against his conviction on each count and seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed.

5 The principal witness in the Crown case was Jaimie Byrne, and I shall refer in summary 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 Yammine and Chami

Details

AGLC: R v Yammine and Chami [2002] NSWCCA 289
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 289
Decision Date: 23 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yammine and Chami involved the defendants being charged with serious criminal offences. The dispute centred on the conduct of the trial, specifically the handling of a Crown witness's testimony and the introduction of an assessment of the witness's credibility by the Crown Prosecutor. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the trial's fairness and legality.

The court was required to address several critical legal issues. These included whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury about the necessity to assess the credibility of the Crown witness, as required under the Evidence Act, section 165. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the introduction of an assessment of the witness's credibility by the Crown Prosecutor, which was attributed to a judge who had earlier sentenced the witness, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court needed to determine if the verdict on each count was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

In its judgment, the court found that the trial judge did not sufficiently warn the jury about the necessity to assess the credibility of the Crown witness, and this omission was significant. Furthermore, the introduction of the credibility assessment by the Crown Prosecutor, which was attributed to a different judge, was deemed inappropriate and prejudicial. This led to a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a re-trial. The court also concluded that the verdict on each count was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory, given the procedural errors identified.

The High Court ordered that the convictions be quashed and a new trial be conducted, ensuring all procedural safeguards were properly observed. This decision underscored the importance of judicial impartiality and the necessity of adhering to legal protocols in criminal trials.

Orders