Sayadi v Regina - [2020] NSWCCA 28

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Sayadi v Regina [2020] NSWCCA 28
Hearing dates: 12 February 2020
Date of orders: 04 March 2020
Decision date: 04 March 2020
Before: Payne JA at [1];
Beech-Jones J at [2];
N Adams J at [75]
Decision:
(1)   The Appellant be granted leave to raise grounds 1, 2 and 3 of his Notice of Appeal.

(2)   The Appellant be refused leave to raise ground 4 of his Notice of Appeal.
(3)   The appeal against conviction be dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – offence of kidnapping contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 – offence of breaking, entering and stealing contrary to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1990 – whether trial judge erred in allowing Crown to call further witnesses after commencement of final address – whether trial judge erred in failing to redact or limit use that could be made of evidence admitted without objection – witness called following change of position by counsel for accused – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed – whether trial judge erred in failing to decide application for discharge of the jury – application not pressed – leave to appeal refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Olivieri v R [2016] NSWCCA 169
R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236
R v O’Driscoll (2003) 57 NSWLR 416; [2003] NSWCCA 166
Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365; [1952] HCA 18
The Queen v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671; [1985] HCA 35
The Queen v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299; [2003] HCA 13
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Issam Sayadi (Appellant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Webb (Appellant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Macquarie Lawyers (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/201007
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

15 March 2019

Before:

Flannery DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/201007

Judgment

PAYNE JA: I agree with Beech-Jones J.
BEECH-JONES J: On 23 August 2018 the Appellant, Issam Sayadi, and four co-accused were arraigned before her Honour Judge Flannery DCJ and a jury of twelve on an indictment that contained four counts. The first count charged that, between 9 September 2016 and 13 September 2016, the Appellant and his four co-accused committed an offence under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, namely, that while acting in the company of other persons, they detained Cheung Pun Lok without his consent with intent to hold him to ransom and, at the time of detaining him, occasioned him actual bodily harm. Count 2 charged that, during the same period, the Appellant and his four co‑accused committed an offence under s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act of acting in company to detain another person, Ms Jing Min Zhou. Count 3 charged, that on 11 September 2016, the Appellant committed an offence under s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes…

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 Sayadi v Regina

Details

AGLC: Sayadi v Regina [2020] NSWCCA 28
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 28
Decision Date: 04 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sayadi v Regina, the appellant, Sayadi, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for kidnapping and breaking, entering and stealing. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Crown alleged that the appellant had kidnapped a woman and subsequently broke into a premises and stole a car. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in several respects, including allowing the Crown to call further witnesses after the commencement of the final address, failing to redact or limit the use of certain evidence, and not deciding an application for the discharge of the jury.

The court considered whether the trial judge's decisions had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in allowing the Crown to call further witnesses after the commencement of the final address. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to redact or limit the use of certain evidence, as the appellant had not objected to the admission of that evidence. Finally, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in not deciding the application for the discharge of the jury, as the appellant had not pressed the application. The court held that none of the alleged errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The court found that the trial judge's decisions did not result in a miscarriage of justice and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the trial judge's decisions. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

Orders