R v Nasiri [2015] NSWSC 1649

R v Nasiri [2015] NSWSC 1649

The elements of the two participation offences are the same: participation in a specified criminal group knowing or being reckless as to participation contributing to criminal activity. The evidence necessary to prove the second participation offence would have sufficed for conviction on the first charge, and both relate to the same criminal group within an overlapping timeframe. The Crown's argument about differing particulars does not create distinct offences in law, so the plea in bar is sustained and the accused discharged on count 36.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mohammed Nasiri
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Plea in Bar (autrefois Convict) and Discharge on Count
Outcome
Plea in bar sustained. Accused discharged on count 36.
Legal Topics
Autrefois Convict, Plea in Bar, Participate in a Criminal Group, Brothers for Life, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Autrefois Convict Plea in Bar Participate in a Criminal Group Brothers for Life Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mohammed Nasiri

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Plea in Bar (autrefois Convict) and Discharge on Count

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plea in bar (autrefois convict) bars successive prosecution for substantially the same offence (participate in a criminal group)
  2. 2 Whether particulars of participation in same criminal group suffice to distinguish charges
  3. 3 Correct procedure for raising plea in bar in criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The elements of the two participation offences are the same: participation in a specified criminal group knowing or being reckless as to participation contributing to criminal activity. The evidence necessary to prove the second participation offence would have sufficed for conviction on the first charge, and both relate to the same criminal group within an overlapping timeframe. The Crown's argument about differing particulars does not create distinct offences in law, so the plea in bar is sustained and the accused discharged on count 36.

Court Disposition

Plea in bar sustained. Accused discharged on count 36.

Orders

  • The plea in bar raised by Mohammed Nasiri in respect of count 36 is sustained.
  • Mohammed Nasiri is discharged with respect to count 36.