Legal Research
Cases
Smith v The King

Smith v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 104 11 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Smith v R [2025] NSWCCA 104
Hearing dates: 28 May 2025
Date of orders: 11 July 2025
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Harrison CJ at CL at [89];
Hamill J at [94].
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeal – unreasonable verdict – applicant convicted on two counts of detaining and occasioning actual bodily harm – where two complainants – when second complainant was herself involved in detention and assault of first complainant – whether any inconsistency between evidence of complainants incapable of resolution by a properly instructed jury – jury’s advantage when both complainants cross-examined at length – whether any material inconsistency between evidence of complainants – whether verdicts in respect of both complaints were open to the jury.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 86(3), 192E(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 165
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15

Cases Cited:
AJ v R (2022) 110 NSWLR 339; [2022] NSWCCA 136
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Gould v R [2023] NSWCCA 103
Gray v R [2020] NSWCCA 240
Hamilton (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 80
Hanna v R [2023] NSWCCA 182
Holt v R [2021] NSWCCA 140
Kim v R [2020] NSWCCA 288
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Nguyen v R [2017] NSWCCA 145
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 88 ALJR 656
RW v R [2023] NSWCCA 2
RA v R [2020] NSWCCA 356
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Trent Steven Smith (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Carroll (Applicant)
A Brown (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/66840
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

21 July 2023

Before:

Culver DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/66840

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 22 November 2022, following an 18-day trial, Trent Steven Smith (the Applicant) and his co-accused, and uncle, Malak Fahmy Bishay (Mr Bishay), were found guilty by a jury of two counts of specially aggravated kidnapping in the company of another person and occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the Act). Count 1 related to…

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 Smith v The King

Details

AGLC: Smith v The King [2025] NSWCCA 104
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 104
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smith has appealed against his conviction on two counts of detaining and causing actual bodily harm to two complainants, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Smith was convicted following a trial where the complainants gave evidence that Smith had detained and assaulted them. However, the second complainant was also involved in the detention and assault of the first complainant.

The central legal issue was whether the jury could have properly considered the evidence of the two complainants and reached a reasonable verdict. Specifically, the court needed to determine if any inconsistency between the complainants' evidence was incapable of resolution by a properly instructed jury. Another key issue was whether the jury had an advantage when both complainants were cross-examined at length. The court also had to consider whether any material inconsistency between the evidence of the complainants rendered the verdict unreasonable.

The court found that the jury was properly instructed and capable of resolving any inconsistencies in the evidence. It held that the jury was advantaged by the extensive cross-examination of the complainants, which allowed for a detailed examination of their credibility and the consistency of their accounts. The court concluded that the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of the first complainant over that of the second, and that the verdicts were open to the jury given the evidence presented.

The appeal was dismissed, and Smith's convictions were upheld. The court found that the jury had properly considered the evidence and reached a reasonable verdict. The inconsistency between the complainants' evidence did not render the verdict unreasonable, and the jury was capable of resolving any discrepancies.

Orders