District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Shahzad v R [2023] NSWDC 421 Hearing dates: 9 October 2023 Decision date: 13 October 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Newlinds SC DCJ Decision: 1. The appeal dated 15 December 2022 is dismissed.
2. If necessary, I confirm the decision of Magistrate Boulos made 15 December 2022.
Catchwords: CRIME – appeal from Magistrate: alleged errors in reasoning
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s 114(1)(a)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 18
Cases Cited: Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67
Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244, and Wood v DPP [2006] NSWCA 240.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
R v Pakis (1981) 3 A Crim R 132
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Amir Shahzad (Appellant)
Rex (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
A Norrie (Appellant)
H Buddin (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Nicopoulos Sabbagh Lawyers (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/334602
2020/334610
2021/234140Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Local Court, Burwood
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Date of Decision:
- 15 December 2022
- Before:
- Magistrate Boulos
- File Number(s):
- 2020/334610
JUDGMENT
Introduction
-
This is an appeal from a decision of Magistrate Boulos delivered on 15 December 2022, wherein her Honour convicted the Appellant of seven offences alleged to have occurred between 1 March 2019 and 22 November 2020.
Background
-
The Crown Summary of the case and the issues were largely uncontroversial. It helpfully frames the case and the issues before me. I will set them out in full:
“1. The Appellant in this matter is Amir Shazad (DOB: 18/08/1978) (“the Appellant”). The victims in this matter are the Appellant’s former wife Ms Naomi Joseph, as well as his children Alannah, Shauna and Adrian.
2. The Appellant pleaded not guilty in the Local Court to all matters and was convicted on 15 December 2022 of a total of seven offences in respect of two separate sets of charge numbers at Burwood Local Court.
3. In respect of charge number H77110056, the Appellant was convicted of five separate offences of common assault (DV) which occurred at the family home. The elements of an offence of common assault contrary to s61(1) Crimes Act 1900 are as follows:
(i) Assault another person, and
(ii) Assault is an act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.
4. In respect of the charge number H82544172 the Appellant was convicted of two further offences. The first offence was contrary to s114(1)(a) Crimes Act, the elements of which are as follows:
(i) armed with a weapon or instrument; and
(ii) intention to commit an indictable offence.
5. The second offence was contrary to s13(1) Crimes Domestic and Personal Violence Act, the elements of which are as follows: i) Intimidate another person, ii) With intent to cause that person physical or mental harm, iii) A person intends to cause fear of physical or mental harm…
Continue reading Shahzad v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Shahzad v The King [2023] NSWDC 421
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 421
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to examine whether the Magistrate's decision was flawed due to incorrect application of legal principles or misunderstanding of the evidence presented. Specifically, the defendant argued that the Magistrate had failed to properly consider certain mitigating factors and had misapplied the law regarding the defendant's intent. The appeal also questioned the proportionality of the sentence handed down by the Magistrate.
Upon review, the court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied the law and had adequately considered the evidence and mitigating factors. The court upheld that the reasoning employed by the Magistrate was sound and that no errors were evident in the decision-making process. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision made by the Magistrate on 15 December 2022 was confirmed. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and supported the proportionality of the sentence imposed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal dated 15 December 2022 is dismissed.
2. If necessary, I confirm the decision of Magistrate Boulos made 15 December 2022.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.