R v Haouchar [2025] NSWDC 47

R v Haouchar [2025] NSWDC 47

The accused was found guilty of certain firearms and drug offences on the basis of joint criminal enterprise with Mr Ratel, supported by forensic evidence directly connecting them to specific items (firearms and drugs) at the Yagoona property and in the Lexus vehicle. However, the Crown did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with the accused's innocence regarding other items, other co-offenders, and other counts, as there was either no forensic connection or insufficient evidence of agreement or participation with three or more persons. The reasoning also relied on credibility of DNA and fingerprint evidence, and discounts the defence of indirect DNA transfer as conjecture in...

Parties
Prosecution: Rex (Crown); Accused: Mahamad Haouchar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Partly guilty, partly acquitted.
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Drug Offences, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Circumstantial Evidence, DNA Evidence, Fingerprints, Possession, Deemed Supply
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Drug Offences Joint Criminal Enterprise Circumstantial Evidence DNA Evidence Fingerprints Possession +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecution

Mahamad Haouchar

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused participated in a criminal group
  2. 2 Whether the accused was in possession of various firearms and prohibited weapons
  3. 3 Whether the accused supplied or was deemed to supply prohibited drugs

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was found guilty of certain firearms and drug offences on the basis of joint criminal enterprise with Mr Ratel, supported by forensic evidence directly connecting them to specific items (firearms and drugs) at the Yagoona property and in the Lexus vehicle. However, the Crown did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with the accused's innocence regarding other items, other co-offenders, and other counts, as there was either no forensic connection or insufficient evidence of agreement or participation with three or more persons. The reasoning also relied on credibility of DNA and fingerprint evidence, and discounts the defence of indirect DNA transfer as conjecture in...

Court Disposition

Partly guilty, partly acquitted.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of Counts 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12.
  • Accused found not guilty of Counts 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 13.