Regina v Haidar-Wardak - [2002] NSWCCA 35

Reported Decision:
(2002) 132 A Crim R 1

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Haidar-Wardak [2002] NSWCCA 35

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60708/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20/2/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 July 2002

PARTIES :

Abdullah Haidar-Wardak (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Bell J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0163

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Holt DCJ

COUNSEL : G I O Rowling (Regina)
G Jauncey (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
Jack Rigg (Appellant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1915 (Vic)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
DPP (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627
R v O'Sullivan (1925) VLR 515
R v Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 183

DECISION: Leave granted pursuant to r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules; Appeal allowed; Quash the conviction recorded in the District Court; Verdict of acquittal substituted

60708/01

MEAGHER JA
WOOD CJ at CL
BELL J

Tuesday 2 July 2002

REGINA v Abdullah HAIDAR-WARDAK

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: I agree with Bell J.

2 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Bell J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of her Honour.

: On 8 August 2001 the appellant was arraigned before Holt ADCJ in the Sydney District Court on an indictment charging him:

“For that he on 9 June 2000 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did falsely pretend to Mark Burridge an officer of Westpac Banking Corporation that certain documents presented to him and purporting to be US Federal Reserve Bonds and US Federal Reserve Notes to the value of $US 3,200,000,000 were genuine documents and were then of that value by means of which false pretence he attempted to obtain a number of safekeeping receipts with intent to defraud”.

3 By notice of appeal dated 22 October 2001 the appellant appeals against his conviction. He also seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on him.

4 On 12 December 2001 the appellant was granted bail pending the determination of this appeal.

5 At the close of the Crown case, Mr Stanton, who then appeared on behalf of the appellant, applied to the trial judge that he direct a verdict of acquittal. The sole ground of appeal contended that his Honour erred in law in failing to accede to that application. Written submissions filed on the appellant’s behalf were directed additionally to the questions of whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, and/or that there had been a miscarriage of justice…

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 Regina v Haidar-Wardak

Details

AGLC: Regina v Haidar-Wardak [2002] NSWCCA 35
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 35
Decision Date: 2 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Haidar-Wardak, the appellant, Abdullah Haidar-Wardak, appealed against his conviction for attempting to commit fraud by falsely pretending that certain documents were genuine. The appeal centered around whether the trial judge erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal as there was no evidence of the appellant's intent to defraud. The court examined the elements of the offence of false pretences and intent to defraud. The court held that the trial miscarried because the Crown relied on irrelevant evidence of Detective Gerondis's suspicions about the appellant's potential future actions, which should not have been presented to the jury. The court found that the Crown's approach was misconceived, and the trial judge did not correct this error. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a verdict of acquittal was substituted. The court did not order a new trial due to the unusual circumstances and the appellant's limited criminal history.

Orders