Khazaal v R [2011] NSWCCA 129

Khazaal v R [2011] NSWCCA 129

By majority, the Court upheld ground 4—error was found in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the evidential burden under s101.5(5) of the Criminal Code, and the jury should have been directed on this defence. Other conviction grounds were dismissed. The conviction was quashed and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction quashed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
['terrorism Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'evidential Burden' 'jury Discharge' 'interpretation of Statutory Language' 'sentencing Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['terrorism Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'evidential Burden' 'jury Discharge' 'interpretation of Statutory Language' 'sentencing Principles']

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 / Decision on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a miscarriage of justice arose from failure to discharge the jury' "Whether trial judge erred in directions on statutory language ('connected with')" 'Whether evidential burden for s101.5(5) Criminal Code was properly applied' 'Whether delay in removing the document from the internet was relevant' 'Assessment of objective seriousness for sentencing' 'Use of foreign convictions in sentencing' 'Deterrence in sentencing' 'Impact of bail conditions on sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court upheld ground 4—error was found in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the evidential burden under s101.5(5) of the Criminal Code, and the jury should have been directed on this defence. Other conviction grounds were dismissed. The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Conviction quashed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in relation to ground 4' 'Conviction quashed' 'Order a new trial']