Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 667

Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 667

The application was refused because, applying the directed verdict test, there was evidence capable of satisfying a jury of the elements of each count. The Crown did not universally have to prove the state of mind of an unidentified ultimate bomber; it was sufficient that there was evidence capable of characterising the contemplated action as a terrorist act within s 100.1. The circumstantial evidence concerning the accused was capable of showing the relevant connection with preparation for terrorist acts and, for counts 1 and 3, knowledge and state of mind concurrent with the collection or making of the documents, even though the precise targets, details or perpetrator had not finally...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Concerning Terrorism Offences Under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Application by the Accused for Directed Verdicts on Four Counts in the Indictment
Outcome
Application for directed verdicts is refused.
Legal Topics
['directed Verdicts' 'preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'possessing a Thing Connected With Preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'collecting or Making Documents Connected With Preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'definition of Terrorist Act' 'fault Elements and Physical Elements']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'terrorism Offences'] ['directed Verdicts' 'preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'possessing a Thing Connected With Preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'collecting or Making Documents Connected With Preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'definition of Terrorist Act' 'fault Elements and Physical Elements']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Concerning Terrorism Offences Under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Application by the Accused for Directed Verdicts on Four Counts in the Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown evidence, taken at its highest, could sustain guilty verdicts on the four terrorism counts.' "Whether, for counts 1, 3 and 4, the Crown could prove that the accused's acts were connected with preparation for a terrorist act." "Whether, for count 2, the Crown could prove that the accused's act was in preparation for a terrorist act." 'Whether the Crown had to prove the motivation or intention of the person who would ultimately carry out the terrorist act.' 'Whether, for counts 1 and 3, the Crown could establish mens rea concurrent with the actus reus.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because, applying the directed verdict test, there was evidence capable of satisfying a jury of the elements of each count. The Crown did not universally have to prove the state of mind of an unidentified ultimate bomber; it was sufficient that there was evidence capable of characterising the contemplated action as a terrorist act within s 100.1. The circumstantial evidence concerning the accused was capable of showing the relevant connection with preparation for terrorist acts and, for counts 1 and 3, knowledge and state of mind concurrent with the collection or making of the documents, even though the precise targets, details or perpetrator had not finally...

Court Disposition

Application for directed verdicts is refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for directed verdicts is refused.']