R v Hawi & ors (No 19) [2011] NSWSC 1665

R v Hawi & ors (No 19) [2011] NSWSC 1665

Applying the no case principles, there was evidence capable of supporting guilty verdicts. The jury could infer that the accused was involved in the pursuit and assault of Mr Padovan at Gate 5, which was sufficient for the affray count. The jury could also infer from the accused's attendance, conduct, movement in the departure hall, possession or use of a bollard, and the surrounding circumstances that he participated in the departure hall violence and was party to an agreement to assault or inflict grievous bodily harm, so the murder count could proceed. For riot, the Crown's pleaded common purpose of the opposing groups fighting each other was legally available under s 93B, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder, Riot and Affray / No Case to Answer Application After the Crown Closed Its Case
Outcome
Application for directed verdicts of acquittal refused
Legal Topics
['directed Verdicts of Acquittal' 'no Case to Answer' 'murder' 'riot' 'affray' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'common Purpose']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['directed Verdicts of Acquittal' 'no Case to Answer' 'murder' 'riot' 'affray' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'common Purpose']

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 Prosecution for Murder, Riot and Affray / No Case to Answer Application After the Crown Closed Its Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was sufficient evidence for the affray count concerning events at Gate 5 to go to the jury against Zoran Kisacanin.' 'Whether there was sufficient evidence for the murder count arising from the departure hall violence to go to the jury against Zoran Kisacanin.' 'Whether there was sufficient evidence for the riot count to go to the jury, including whether the common purpose alleged under s 93B of the Crimes Act 1900 could be a purpose to fight each other rather than a purpose directed against a mutual enemy.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the no case principles, there was evidence capable of supporting guilty verdicts. The jury could infer that the accused was involved in the pursuit and assault of Mr Padovan at Gate 5, which was sufficient for the affray count. The jury could also infer from the accused's attendance, conduct, movement in the departure hall, possession or use of a bollard, and the surrounding circumstances that he participated in the departure hall violence and was party to an agreement to assault or inflict grievous bodily harm, so the murder count could proceed. For riot, the Crown's pleaded common purpose of the opposing groups fighting each other was legally available under s 93B, and the...

Court Disposition

Application for directed verdicts of acquittal refused

Orders

  • ['The submission that there is no case to answer in respect of each of the counts to which Mr Kisacanin pleaded not guilty is rejected.']