Masri v R [2015] NSWCCA 243

Masri v R [2015] NSWCCA 243

The amended indictment was not duplicitous because the Crown alleged that the appellant did the relevant "anything" by facilitating the release of the container, a course of conduct capable of comprising multiple acts. The evidence of the Pakplast, Alpha Tiles and Livingstone importations was admissible as context,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Causing a Loss to a Commonwealth Entity' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'duplicity in Indictment' 'context Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['dishonestly Causing a Loss to a Commonwealth Entity' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'duplicity in Indictment' 'context Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended indictment was duplicitous because the Crown relied on a variety of acts to sustain a single charge under s 135.1(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth).' 'Whether evidence of other piggyback importations was irrelevant, inadmissible tendency evidence, or should have been excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the jury direction that prior substantial participation could support an inference of continued substantial participation invited impermissible tendency reasoning.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the appellant's role was not insignificant despite being unable to make a precise finding as to his role."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended indictment was not duplicitous because the Crown alleged that the appellant did the relevant "anything" by facilitating the release of the container, a course of conduct capable of comprising multiple acts. The evidence of the Pakplast, Alpha Tiles and Livingstone importations was admissible as context, relationship and code evidence, not as tendency evidence, and its very high probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice capable of being addressed by directions. The substantial participation direction was drawn from Harriman v The Queen and did not invite impermissible tendency reasoning. The sentencing finding that the appellant's role was not insignificant was...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused.']