Yacoub v R - [2008] NSWCCA 164

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Yacoub v R [2008] NSWCCA 164

HEARING DATE(S): 6 June 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 July 2008

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 77; Hidden J at 78

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - attempted murder - whether victim's injuries self-inflicted - whether jury verdict unreasonable

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Krishna v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 318

PARTIES: Harb Yacoub (Appellant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3141

COUNSEL: C T Loukas (Appellant)
N Adams (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Procter & Associates (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/0228

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phegan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 21 May 2007

2007/3141

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J
WEDNESDAY 16 JULY 2008

YACOUB, Harb v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: Harb Yacoub was convicted following a trial by jury in the District Court of the attempted murder of the victim. He was sentenced to a non-parole period of six years with a balance of term of two years. He challenges his conviction but does not seek leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.

2 The appellant makes no complaint about the conduct of his trial. He seeks to advance only one ground of appeal, being that, on all the evidence, “the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported.” It may be that leave to argue this ground is required (see Krishna v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 318). The Crown does not oppose leave and in my opinion it should be granted. I will refer to Mr Yacoub as the appellant.

The Crown case

3 Before considering various issues in detail it may be helpful to outline the Crown case. It began with evidence that the appellant and the victim commenced a relationship after meeting in a coffee shop. The appellant is a Lebanese-Australian Christian and the victim is a Sudanese-Australian Christian who has spent most of her life in Dubai. Her parents were still residing in Dubai. The victim lived in Sydney with her grandmother.

4 During the months of their relationship the appellant obtained money, in the order of $60,000, from the victim on promises that he would marry her. They had sexual relations on a number of occasions. The victim obtained the money from her parents and brother in Dubai, her grandmother, from her own savings and by selling some jewellery.

5 On the day of the incident, 22 February 2006, the victim told the appellant that she had placed $800 in his bank account but had no more money. The appellant promised the victim that he would not ask her for any more money and arranged for them to go out that night for “a celebration.” He picked the victim up in his car. She rang her friend Ms Hassan when she was in the…

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 Yacoub v R

Details

AGLC: Yacoub v R [2008] NSWCCA 164
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 164
Decision Date: 16 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the court was brought by the appellant, Yacoub, against the respondent, the Crown, concerning a conviction for attempted murder. The appellant was convicted of attempting to murder a victim who had been found severely injured, and the central issue in the appeal was whether the injuries were self-inflicted or the result of an attack by the appellant. The appeal was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented.

The court needed to consider whether the jury could have reasonably concluded that the victim's injuries were self-inflicted, given the evidence presented. This involved a careful examination of the medical evidence regarding the nature and extent of the injuries, as well as the circumstances in which they were sustained. The court also had to assess whether the jury could have reasonably dismissed the appellant's account of events and determined that he was guilty of the offence. This required a detailed analysis of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.

The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, given the evidence presented. The court found that the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the victim's injuries were consistent with being inflicted by another person, and that the appellant's account of events was not credible. The court also found that the jury could have reasonably rejected the appellant's alibi and determined that he was guilty of the offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the appellant's conviction for attempted murder was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders