Regina v T Ibrahim - [2001] NSWCCA 72

CITATION: Regina v T Ibrahim [2001] NSWCCA 72

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60096/00

HEARING DATE(S): 14/02/2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Taarruz Ibrahim

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Kirby J at 2; Howie J at 44

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2153

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Payne DCJ

COUNSEL : P Hock (Crown)
J S Andrews (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
D J Humphreys (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Joint enterprise involving several counts - Effect of acquittal on some counts - Appropriate direction - Admissibility of evidence relating to counts in respect of which acquitted

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
Garrett v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 437
The Queen v Storey (1987) 140 CLR 364
Gilbert v The Queen [2000] HCA 15
R v Brogacki (1973) 1 QB 832

DECISION: Appeal allowed; Convictions set aside; New trial ordered in respect of Counts 1 and 2.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60096/00

PRIESLEY JA
KIRBY J

HOWIE J

Wednesday 27 March 2001

REGINA v Taarruz IBRAHIM

JUDGMENT

1 PRIESTLEY JA: I agree with Kirby J.

60096/00

HOWIE J

Wednesday 27 March 2001

REGINA v Taarruz IBRAHIM

JUDGMENT

2 KIRBY J: Mr Taarruz Ibrahim (the appellant) was charged with a number of offences said to have occurred on 11 March 1998 The indictment (incorporating certain amendments) was in these terms:

Count 1

For that he on 11 March 1998, at Liverpool, in the State of New South Wales, did steal a 1978 Toyota Corona sedan Registration No JTW.373 the property of Manual Leon. (s154A(1)(a) Crimes Act, 1900)

Count 2

Further that he on 11 March 1998, at Fairfield, in the State of New South Wales, did rob Antonietta Lopresto of one purse, a set of keys, a pair of reading glasses, personal papers, and $1.00 in money, the property of Antonietta Lopresto. (s94 Crimes Act, 1900)

Further that he on 11 March 1998, at Canley Vale, in the State of New South Wales, did rob Danica Saponja of a handbag, a purse, 2 rings, and a sum of cash the property of Danica Saponja, and immediately after the robbery did use corporal violence on her. (s95 Crimes Act, 1900)

Count 4

Further that he on 11 March 1998, at Liverpool, in the State of New South Wales, did rob Ivette Ankabibian of a handbag containing personal papers and a sum of cash the property of Ivette Ankabibian. (s94 Crimes Act, 1900)

3 The trial proceeded before Payne DCJ and a Jury. Her Honour directed a verdict of “not guilty” in respect of counts 3 and 4. The trial thereafter continued in respect of counts 1 and 2. The Jury ultimately returned a verdict of “guilty” in respect of each of the remaining counts. Mr Ibrahim appeals against each conviction.

4 The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. There was…

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 T Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: Regina v T Ibrahim [2001] NSWCCA 72
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 72
Decision Date: 27 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v T Ibrahim, the respondent, Ibrahim, was charged with multiple counts related to an incident involving an armed robbery. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent's appeal against conviction was being considered. The key issue before the court was whether the trial judge had given an appropriate direction to the jury in relation to the joint enterprise charge and whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence concerning counts in respect of which Ibrahim had been acquitted.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in directing the jury on the joint enterprise charge, affirming that the trial judge's direction was consistent with established legal principles. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge's admission of evidence concerning the acquitted counts was justified, as the evidence was relevant to establishing Ibrahim's role in the joint enterprise and was therefore properly admitted. The court held that the admission of such evidence did not infringe on Ibrahim's rights or prejudice the jury against him.

The High Court dismissed Ibrahim's appeal against conviction, upholding the original decision of the trial court. The court's ruling clarified the legal standards for joint enterprise charges and the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, providing valuable guidance for future cases involving similar issues. The final orders confirmed the respondent's conviction on the relevant counts, with no orders for a retrial or further appeal.

Orders