Regina v Saltan - [2002] NSWCCA 423

CITATION: REGINA v SALTAN [2002] NSWCCA 423

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60453/01

HEARING DATE(S): 30 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 September 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Ahmet Saltan

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Howie J at 35; Smart AJ at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0983

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : A Martin - Appellant
PJP Power - Crown

SOLICITORS: Galloways - Appellant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - Unreliable evidence - directions by trial judge - use of word "accomplice" - whether desirable - Evidence Act 1995, s 165 - CRIMINAL LAW - unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict - where sworn evidence of alleged accomplices resiled from earlier statements inculpating accused.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60453/01

SPIGELMAN CJ
HOWIE J
SMART AJ
Monday 30 September 2002

REGINA v Ahmet SALTAN

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: On 21 March 2001, the Appellant was convicted of one charge of larceny of a motor vehicle, contrary to s154A(1)(b) and s117 of the Crimes Act 1900 and of a second charge of robbery with corporal violence and wounding, contrary to s96 of the Crimes Act 1900.

2 On 25 November 1997, a robbery occurred at the “Cash in a Flash” pawnbrokers on Parramatta Road, Leichhardt. Three men were present in the shop during the course of the robbery, Christian Somba, Haykel Karaman and Manunu Treiblmayr. During the course of the robbery, there was a struggle between the two owners of the pawn broking business and the robbers. During the course of the struggle, Karaman wounded both owners with a knife. One owner received a large gash to the neck and the left side of his face which required 24 stitches. His brother received a cut to the head which required stitches.

3 During the course of the robbery, the Appellant remained in the stolen car near the shops. After the robbery Somba, Karaman and Treiblmayr returned to the car which drove off at considerable speed and through a red light. Subsequently, the car was abandoned. All four occupants caught a bus and were arrested on the bus.

4 The Crown case against the Appellant was that there had been a joint criminal enterprise amongst the four persons to rob the store at knifepoint and that each person had carried out the particular role assigned to him. The Crown case was that the Appellant was the instigator and organiser of the robbery and in fact suggested the place to be robbed and had given the knife to Karaman, who subsequently used it to wound the two owners. The Crown case was that the Appellant waited in the car while his three associates carried out the robbery, that he was seated in the driver’s seat and that it was he who drove the car away at considerable speed and through a red light. On the Crown case,…

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 Saltan

Details

AGLC: Regina v Saltan [2002] NSWCCA 423
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 423
Decision Date: 30 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Saltan involved the accused, Mr Saltan, who faced charges related to a criminal conspiracy. The case was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the decision of the trial judge and the jury's verdict. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the reliability of the evidence provided by alleged accomplices of the accused. The trial judge had referred to the witnesses as "accomplices" and the court had to determine if this was appropriate and whether it may have influenced the jury.

The court examined whether the use of the term "accomplice" by the trial judge was appropriate under the Evidence Act 1995, specifically section 165, which deals with the admissibility of evidence from an accomplice. The court considered whether the term might have led the jury to presume the witnesses' evidence was inherently unreliable, potentially affecting the verdict. The court also assessed whether the trial judge should have given a direction to the jury regarding the unreliability of the evidence, given that the witnesses had previously provided statements inculpating the accused but later retracted their evidence in court.

After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's directions, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the trial judge's use of the term "accomplice" was not necessarily inappropriate, but it could have influenced the jury's perception of the witnesses' credibility. The court found that the evidence provided by the alleged accomplices was unreliable, and the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider this factor more explicitly. As a result, the court determined that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the reliance on such evidence. The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

Orders