Regina v Lodhi - [2006] NSWSC 667

Reported Decision:
199 FLR 354

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 667

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: Application for directed verdicts is refused.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Trial - application for Verdicts by Direction - Principles - Elements of Terrorism offences: s 101.4, s 101.5, s 101.6 of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth)

CASES CITED: Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 at 215
R (1989) 44 ACR 404
Regina v Lodhi (14 February 2006 per Whealy J)
Lodhi v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 121

PARTIES: Regina v Faheem Khalid Lodhi

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1094

COUNSEL: Mr P. oulten SC; Mr P. Lanage - Accused
Mr. R. Maidment SC; Mr. G. Bellew - Crown

SOLICITORS: Michael Doughty Solicitor - Accused
DPP (Commonwealth) - Crown

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

WHEALY J

WEDNESDAY 17 May 2006

2005/1094 - REGINA v Faheem Khalid LODHI

JUDGMENT - On application by the accused for Verdicts by Direction

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application on behalf of the accused for a directed verdict in relation to the four counts in the indictment.

2 The four charges against the accused, stated in shorthand fashion, are as follows: -

1. The accused is charged that on or about 3 October 2003 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he did collect documents, namely two maps of the Australian electricity supply system which were connected with preparation for a terrorist act, knowing the said connection.

The particulars of the terrorist act assert, in part, that the act was an action or threat of action involving the causing of serious damage to the Australian Electricity Supply System, or part thereof, by the detonation of an explosive or incendiary device or devices.

2. The accused is further charged that on or about 10 October 2003 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he intentionally did an act, in preparation for a terrorist act, namely sought information concerning the availability of materials capable of being used for the manufacture of explosives or incendiary devices.

3. The accused is further charged that on or about 24 October 2003 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he did make a document, namely a set of aerial photographs.

4. The accused is charged that on or about 26 October 2003 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he possessed a thing, namely a document containing information concerning the ingredients for and the method of manufacture of poisons, explosives, detonators and incendiary devices and concerning “intelligence” which was connected with preparation for a terrorist act, knowing the said connection.

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 Lodhi

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 667
Case: [2006] NSWSC 667
Decision Date: 17 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Lodhi, the appellant was convicted of multiple terrorism-related offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction for the terrorism offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in directing verdicts of not guilty on certain counts and whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions on the remaining counts. The court was required to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion to direct verdicts and the elements required to establish terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in directing verdicts of not guilty and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining convictions.

The High Court determined that the trial judge had not erred in directing verdicts of not guilty on certain counts, as the evidence was insufficient to establish those offences beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions on the remaining counts. The court held that the trial judge had correctly considered the principles governing the exercise of discretion to direct verdicts and had applied them appropriately in the context of the evidence presented. The court also confirmed the elements required to establish terrorism offences under the relevant sections of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and found that the evidence met those requirements.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the convictions on the remaining counts and to dismiss the appeal. The court held that the trial judge's exercise of discretion in directing verdicts of not guilty on certain counts was not an error and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions on the remaining counts. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the convictions were affirmed.

Orders