R v Hawi & ors (No 20) [2011] NSWSC 1666

R v Hawi & ors (No 20) [2011] NSWSC 1666

There is sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the accused guilty of affray and riot; matters regarding conflicting evidence, self-defence, or defence of another are properly for the jury, rather than supporting a directed verdict of acquittal at this stage.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: David Padovan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Directed Verdicts of Acquittal During Jury Trial
Outcome
Application for directed verdicts of acquittal refused
Legal Topics
Affray, Riot, Self Defence, Sufficiency of Evidence, Defence of Another
Criminal Law Affray Riot Self Defence Sufficiency of Evidence Defence of Another

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

David Padovan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Directed Verdicts of Acquittal During Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence for the accused to have a case to answer on charges of affray and riot
  2. 2 Whether self-defence or defence of another applies to the accused's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

There is sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the accused guilty of affray and riot; matters regarding conflicting evidence, self-defence, or defence of another are properly for the jury, rather than supporting a directed verdict of acquittal at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for directed verdicts of acquittal refused

Orders

  • Application for directed verdicts of acquittal refused; case will continue before the jury