Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam [No 57] - [2008] NSWSC 1471

CITATION: Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 57] [2008] NSWSC 1471

HEARING DATE(S): 14/10/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 October 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: Application for separate trial is refused.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Application for a separate trial - Application of revelant principles.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Ahern v Regina (1988) 165 CLR 87
Domican v R (1989) 43 A Crim R 24 at 26
Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41 at 88-89 per Toohey J
R v Baladjam & Ors [No 49] 30 September 2008
R v Bikic [2000] 112 A Crim R 300
R v Ce [2005] NSWCCA 362 per Grove J at paras 4-5
R v Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153
R v Fernando (1999) NSWCCA 66 at (195-226)
R v Macrailed NSWCCA 18 December 1997
R v Masters, Richard & Wunderlich (1992) 26 NSWLR at 460
R v Merrett 19 A Crim R 363
R v Middis SC NSW 27 March 1991, Hunt J (unreported) at p 4

PARTIES:
Regina (C'Wealth) v Omar BALADJAM [No 57]
Regina (C'Wealth) v Khaled CHEIKHO
Regina (C'Wealth) v Moustafa CHEIKHO
Regina (C'Wealth) v Mohamed Ali ELOMAR
Regina (C'Wealth) v Abdul Rakib HASAN
Regina (C'Wealth) v Mohammed Omar JAMAL
Regina (C'Wealth) v Mirsad MULAHALILOVIC

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/2397001; ; 2007/2395001; 2007/2398001; 2007/2399001; 2007/2400001; 2007/2452001; 2007/2454001;

COUNSEL:
R Maidment SC; G. Bellew SC; C. Donnell; Ms S McNaughton - Crown
M Buscombe SC; R Pontello - Accused Baladjam
C Waterstreet; P Lange - Accused K Cheikho
R Button SC; I Nash - Accused M Cheikho
D Dalton SC; E Ozen - Accused Elomar
Ms D Yehia; Ms S Beckett - Accused Hasan
T. Hale SC; G Scragg; D Carroll - Accused Jamal
G Turnbull SC; A Djemal - Accused Mulahalilovic

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP
Greg Walsh & Co - Accused Baladjam
Lawyers Corporation Ltd - Accused K Cheikho
William O'Brien & Ross Hudson Solicitors - Accused M. Cheikho
Nyman Gibson Stewart - Accused Elomar
Legal Aid Commission - Accused Hasan
Michael Doughty Solicitor - Accused Jamal
Lawyers Corporation Ltd - Accused Mulahalilovic

-1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

PARRAMATTA: FRIDAY 24 October 2008

2007/2397001 - Regina v Omar BALADJAM [No 57]
2007/2395001 - Regina v Khaled CHEIKHO
2007/2398001 - Regina v Moustafa CHEIKHO
2007/2399001 - Regina v Mohamed Ali ELOMAR
2007/2400001 - Regina v Abdul Rakib HASAN
2007/2452001 - Regina v Mohammed Omar JAMAL
2007/2454001 - Regina v Mirsad MULAHALILOVIC
2007/2455001 - Regina v Mazen TOUMA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - Application for a separate trial by Mirsad Mulahalilovic

1 HIS HONOUR: On Tuesday 14 October 2008 I received written submissions and heard oral argument relating to the application by Mirsad Mulahalilovic for a separate trial. Arguments on the accused’s behalf were presented by Mr Turnbull SC. After hearing argument, I announced immediately that I had decided, in the exercise of my discretion,…

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 Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam [No 57] 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: [2008] NSWSC 1471
Decision Date: 24 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Commonwealth brought a prosecution against Baladjam concerning charges of drug importation and possession. The defendant moved for a separate trial on the charge of importation, arguing that it was distinct from the charge of possession and would unfairly prejudice the outcome of the latter. The court was required to determine whether the principles of separability and potential prejudice warranted a separate trial for the importation charge.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the charge of drug importation should be tried separately from the charge of possession, considering the principles established in relevant case law. The court examined whether the charges were distinct and whether a joint trial would result in a miscarriage of justice. It also assessed whether the potential prejudice to the defendant outweighed the public interest in efficiency and economy in the administration of justice.

The court found that the charges of importation and possession were distinct, as they involved different elements and legal standards. However, the court determined that the potential prejudice to the defendant in a joint trial did not sufficiently outweigh the public interest in trying the charges together. The court held that a separate trial was not warranted, as the defendant's right to a fair trial could be adequately protected through measures such as jury directions and the careful management of evidence. Consequently, the application for a separate trial was dismissed.

The court ordered that the charges of drug importation and possession be tried together in a single proceeding, ensuring that appropriate measures were taken to safeguard the defendant's rights.

Orders