R v Elfatah Yucub EL-HAJ [2012] NSWDC 296

R v Elfatah Yucub EL-HAJ [2012] NSWDC 296

The judge was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm because Catalina Briceno's evidence left a reasonable doubt about whether Beanika Goak was directly behind the car and visible to him. However, the judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused reversed at speed while aware that people were nearby and that he realised grievous bodily harm might occur if he hit someone, yet proceeded anyway. The judge was also satisfied that the accused knew an impact had occurred, given the wheel going almost completely over Ms Goak, the significant bump, and people screaming for him to stop, but he failed to stop and assist.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on Indictment / Trial Before Judge Without Jury; Verdict After Evidence
Outcome
Not guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent under s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900; guilty of the statutory alternative of reckless grievous bodily harm under s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900; guilty of failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing grievous bodily harm under s 52AB(2) of the Crimes Act...
Legal Topics
['offences Against the Person' 'grievous Bodily Harm' 'recklessness' 'intent' 'failing to Stop and Assist After Vehicle Impact' 'judge Alone Trial']
['criminal Law'] ['offences Against the Person' 'grievous Bodily Harm' 'recklessness' 'intent' 'failing to Stop and Assist After Vehicle Impact' 'judge Alone Trial']

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 Proceedings on Indictment / Trial Before Judge Without Jury; Verdict After Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused inflicted grievous bodily harm on Beanika Goak with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.' 'Whether the statutory alternative offence of causing grievous bodily harm recklessly was proved beyond reasonable doubt.' 'Whether the accused knew his car had been involved in an impact causing grievous bodily harm and failed to stop and assist.' "Whether the accused's intoxication affected his capacity to form the relevant intent or awareness." 'Where Beanika Goak was standing when the accused reversed his car.']

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm because Catalina Briceno's evidence left a reasonable doubt about whether Beanika Goak was directly behind the car and visible to him. However, the judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused reversed at speed while aware that people were nearby and that he realised grievous bodily harm might occur if he hit someone, yet proceeded anyway. The judge was also satisfied that the accused knew an impact had occurred, given the wheel going almost completely over Ms Goak, the significant bump, and people screaming for him to stop, but he failed to stop and assist.

Court Disposition

Not guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent under s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900; guilty of the statutory alternative of reckless grievous bodily harm under s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900; guilty of failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing grievous bodily harm under s 52AB(2) of the Crimes Act...

Orders

  • ['The accused was acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.' 'The accused was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to Beanika Goak, being reckless as to causing her grievous bodily harm.' 'The accused was convicted of driving a car involved in an impact with Beanika...