Regina v Charbel Rahme

Case [2003] NSWCA 135


CITATION: REGINA v Charbel RAHME [2003] NSWCA 135
HEARING DATE(S): 16 May 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
16 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Beazley JA at 20; Ipp JA at 21
DECISION: Bail revoked.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - BAIL - CONVICTION IN DISTRICT COURT - INTENTION TO APPEAL - BAIL ACT 1978, S30AA - "special or exceptional circumstances" - appeal must be most likely to succeed - intended appeal not of this category - bail revoked (ND)

PARTIES :

REGINA v Charbel RAHME
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40386/03
COUNSEL: Appellant: P Calvert
Respondent: G Scragg
SOLICITORS: Appellant: S E O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Nyman Gibson Stewart
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0426
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Woods DCJ


                          CA 40386/03

                          MASON P
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          IPP JA

                          Friday 16 May 2003
REGINA v Charbel RAHME

JUDGMENT


1 MASON P: Mr Charbel Rahme, whom I shall refer to as the offender, was tried on indictment in the District Court. The indictment contained seven counts as follows:

          1. Between about 4th January 2001 and 8th April 2001, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with N, a child then between the age of 10 and 16 years, namely, of the age of 15 years.
          2. Between about 4th January 2001 and 8th April 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely, cocaine.
          3. Between about 4th January 2001 and 8th April 2001, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did cause N, a child then under the age of 18 years, namely, of the age of 15 years, to participate in an act of child prostitution with a person whose name is unknown.
          4. Between about 4th January 2001 and 8th April 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did receive certain money knowing that such money was derived from an act of child prostitution.
          5. Between about 4th January 2001 and 8th April 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, was a person capable of exercising lawful control over certain premises, namely, the “Delarose Escort Agency” located at 551 Princes Highway, Rockdale, in which N, a child then under the age of 18 years, namely, of the age of 15 years, participated in an act of child prostitution.
          6. Between about 4th April 2001 and 8th April 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did assault N, thereby occasioning to her actual bodily harm.
          7. Between 4th April 2001 and 8th April 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did detain N with intent to hold her for his advantage.

2 Following a lengthy trial and a lengthy period of deliberation by the jury, he was acquitted on counts two and six, and found guilty on the remaining counts. He was convicted pursuant to the jury’s verdicts.

3 The conviction was entered on 26 March, we were informed,…

Continue reading Regina v Charbel Rahme

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
REGINA v Charbel Rahme [2003] NSWCA 135
Case
[2003] NSWCA 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Charbel Rahme concerned an application for bail by the appellant, Charbel Rahme, following his conviction in the District Court. The appeal was heard by Mason P, Beazley and Ipp JJA in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant had established "special or exceptional circumstances" for the grant of bail pending his appeal against conviction, as required by section 30AA of the *Bail Act 1978* (NSW). This statutory test necessitates that the intended appeal must have a high probability of success.

The Court reasoned that the appellant's intended appeal did not meet the stringent threshold of being "most likely to succeed." Applying the principles established in previous case law regarding the interpretation of "special or exceptional circumstances" in the context of bail pending appeal, the Court found that the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant were not sufficiently strong to warrant the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court ordered that bail be revoked.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail revoked.

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.