Regina v Kaddour - [2002] NSWCCA 112

CITATION: Regina v Kaddour [2002] NSWCCA 112

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60565/00

HEARING DATE(S): 4 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 April 2002

PARTIES :

Kalid Kaddour (Appellant)
The Crown (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Dowd J at 49; Buddin J at 50

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0496

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL : S J Odgers (Appellant)
L M B Lamprati (The Crown)

SOLICITORS: Galloways (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (The Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - driving in a manner dangerous and causing grievous bodily harm - appeal against conviction - fresh evidence - whether evidence was available at the time of the trial - appeal against sentence - sentence excessive. - N/D

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
R v AT [2000] NSWCCA 342
R v Hemsley (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 8 December 1995)
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510

DECISION: 1) Appeal against conviction dismissed 2) Leave to appeal against sentence granted and the appeal allowed 3) Set aside the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and, in lieu thereof, the appellant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment to date from 3 March 2000 and to expire on 2 March 2004. A non-parole period of 3 years is set from the commencement of the sentence on 3 March 2000 to expire on 2 March 2003.

60565/01

STEIN JA
DOWD J
BUDDIN J
Friday 5 April 2002

REGINA v Kalid KADDOUR

Judgment

1 STEIN JA: This is a conviction appeal by Kalid Kaddour. On 3 July 2000 the appellant was found guilty of driving in a manner dangerous and causing grievous bodily harm. On 30 August 2000 he was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 ½ years. He also seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

2 On 14 September 1998 the appellant drove a Lamborghini motor vehicle south in Barrenjoey Road, Mona Vale when it crossed a concrete medium strip into a north bound lane and collided with a Volvo being driven by Mrs Dexter, causing her injury. The accident occurred just south of the intersection with Phillip Road and close to the intersection with Grandview Parade. When it crossed the medium strip the Lamborghini was travelling at a high speed, somewhere between 100 and 105 kph. The speed limit was 60 kph.

3 Although there was evidence that the appellant’s speed at the time of the accident was in excess of 105 kph, the jury were unable to agree on the alternative charge of causing grievous bodily harm by driving at a speed dangerous, to wit, more than105 kph.

4 There was evidence that prior to the accident, and for a distance of approximately 6 km, the appellant had been seen by numerous witnesses to be driving at very high speeds. A Lamborghini is a very powerful high performance car, perhaps more…

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 Kaddour

Details

AGLC: Regina v Kaddour [2002] NSWCCA 112
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 112
Decision Date: 5 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Kaddour is a case that involves the appellant, Kaddour, who was convicted of driving in a manner dangerous to cause grievous bodily harm. The court heard an appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The court's task was to determine whether the evidence presented was available at the time of the trial and whether the sentence was excessive. The appeal against the conviction focused on the availability of fresh evidence, while the appeal against the sentence examined whether the punishment was disproportionate to the crime committed.

The court had to address two primary legal issues. First, it had to determine if the fresh evidence presented was indeed unavailable at the time of the trial, which would warrant a new trial. This involves examining the circumstances surrounding the availability of the evidence and whether there were reasonable grounds for its non-disclosure. Second, the court had to assess whether the sentence imposed was excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the principles of sentencing in similar cases.

The court carefully evaluated the evidence and the circumstances surrounding its availability. It concluded that the fresh evidence was not truly unavailable at the time of the trial, as there were reasonable grounds for its disclosure. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the court examined the severity of the crime and the principles of proportionality in sentencing. The court found that the sentence was not excessive, taking into account the harm caused and the need for deterrence. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.

In summary, the court upheld the conviction and the sentence in Regina v Kaddour. The fresh evidence was deemed available at the time of the trial, and the sentence was considered proportionate to the offence. The appeals against both the conviction and the sentence were therefore unsuccessful.

Orders