Legal Research
Cases
Razzak v Regina

Razzak v Regina

Case [2008] NSWCCA 304 16 December 2008

Circumstantial Evidence

Inconsistent Verdicts

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 191 A Crim R 530

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Razzak v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 304

HEARING DATE(S): 11 November, 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Blanch J at 6; Hall J at 93

DECISION: 1. The appeal against conviction in respect of counts 4, 6 and 8 of the indictment allowed and the convictions and sentences quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.
2. The appeal against conviction in respect of counts 2 and 9 dismissed and the convictions confirmed.
3. Leave granted to appeal against the sentences on counts 2 and 9 but appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - length of jury deliberations - unsafe and unreasonable verdicts - circumstantial evidence - inconsistent verdicts - Evidence Act (leave to cross-examine under s38)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900, s29, s33A(1), s33A(2), s93G(1)(b)
Criminal Appeal Act, 1912, s6(1), s6(3)
Evidence Act, 1995, s38, s60, s66, s135, s137, s192

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96
Black v R [1993-1994] 179 CLR 44
Blewitt v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 503
Hargan v The Queen (1919) 27 CLR 13
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
Parker v R [1962-1963] 111 CLR 610
R v de Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442
R v Le (2002) 54 NSWLR 474
R v Micallef (2003) 136 A Crim R 127
R v Mundine [2008] NSWCCA 55
R v Parkes (2993) 147 A Crim R 450
R(Cth) v Petroulias (No. 29) [2007] NSWSC 1005
R v Ronen [2004] NSWSC 1298
R v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR at 516
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657

PARTIES: Mohamed Razzak (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/00003912

COUNSEL: M C Ramage QC (Appellant)
L Wells (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Jeffreys & Associates
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0590

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hock DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23 March, 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Mohamed Razzak

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2007/00003912

ALLSOP P

BLANCH J

HALL J

16 December, 2008

Mohamed RAZZAK v Regina

1 ALLSOP P: I have had the advantage of considering the reasons of Blanch J. Having considered the material at the trial, there is nothing that I would wish to add to his Honour’s reasons on the conviction appeals. The views that his Honour expresses reflect mine. As to the application for leave to appeal against sentence, I also agree with his Honour’s reasons, though I would add the following comments of my own.

2 I have given anxious consideration to the question of the sentences for convictions that are not to be set aside. Mr…

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 Razzak v Regina

Details

AGLC: Razzak v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 304
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 304
Decision Date: 16 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Razzak, was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter. He appealed against his convictions, arguing that the length of jury deliberations, which spanned over three days, was indicative of an unsafe and unreasonable verdict. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the jury's extended deliberations could be considered a factor suggesting that the verdicts were unsafe and unreasonable. The appellant also contended that the verdicts were inconsistent and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to reconsider their verdicts.

The court examined the circumstances of the case and the principles guiding the safety and reasonableness of jury verdicts. It noted that the length of jury deliberations alone does not necessarily imply an unsafe or unreasonable verdict. The court considered the nature of the evidence, which was largely circumstantial, and whether the jury's verdicts were supported by that evidence. The court also addressed the appellant's argument regarding inconsistent verdicts, finding that the jury's findings were not inherently inconsistent. Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion under the Evidence Act regarding the leave to cross-examine.

The court concluded that the jury's extended deliberations did not render the verdicts unsafe and unreasonable. The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support the jury's findings. The court also found no inconsistency in the verdicts and affirmed that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The High Court affirmed that the trial judge's decision to not direct the jury to reconsider their verdicts was not in error.

Orders