R v Batak [2022] NSWSC 424

R v Batak [2022] NSWSC 424

The challenge failed because the Crown case was capable of proving that the accused had agreed with Cengiz Coskun to carry out robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, supplied a loaded gun and clothing, and implicitly acquiesced in the same plan being executed with another person taking his place. The accused's absence from the scene did not preclude liability under complicity principles, and the Crown did not need to prove that Coskun fired the fatal shot with the particular gun supplied by the accused. There was no evidence on the Crown case raising withdrawal as a reasonable possibility.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on Indictment for Murder and Attempted Armed Robbery / Pre Trial Motion to Quash the Indictment or Permanently Stay Proceedings on the Murder Count
Outcome
Motion to quash the indictment or to permanently stay proceedings on the count of murder is refused.
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'motion to Quash Indictment' 'constructive Murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'complicity']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'motion to Quash Indictment' 'constructive Murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'complicity']

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 for Murder and Attempted Armed Robbery / Pre Trial Motion to Quash the Indictment or Permanently Stay Proceedings on the Murder Count

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the count of murder should be quashed or permanently stayed because the accused was not present and the act causing death was not done by the accused or by an accomplice "with him".' 'Whether there was no act of the accused causing death for the purposes of the Crown case on murder.' 'Whether the Crown case could prove an agreement by the accused to commit the foundational offence of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon.' 'Whether the Crown needed to prove that Cengiz Coskun fired the fatal shot and used the gun supplied by the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenge failed because the Crown case was capable of proving that the accused had agreed with Cengiz Coskun to carry out robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, supplied a loaded gun and clothing, and implicitly acquiesced in the same plan being executed with another person taking his place. The accused's absence from the scene did not preclude liability under complicity principles, and the Crown did not need to prove that Coskun fired the fatal shot with the particular gun supplied by the accused. There was no evidence on the Crown case raising withdrawal as a reasonable possibility.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash the indictment or to permanently stay proceedings on the count of murder is refused.

Orders

  • ['The motion to quash the count of murder, alternatively to permanently stay the proceedings on the count of murder, is dismissed.']