R v Qaumi & Ors (No 58) [2016] NSWSC 1158

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 58) [2016] NSWSC 1158

Taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence capable of supporting findings that the original criminal enterprise had not ended, that the shooting carried out by Witness L was within the scope of the joint criminal enterprise or incidental to it, and that it was within the contemplation of Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi that a person or house other than the agreed target might be shot at once Witness L reached the scene. Those factual questions were for the jury, so a directed verdict was not available.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Applications by Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty on Count 18 at the Close of the Prosecution Case
Outcome
Applications refused.
Legal Topics
['directed Verdict' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'common Purpose' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'firearm Discharged at Dwelling House' 'organised Criminal Activity']
['criminal Law'] ['directed Verdict' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'common Purpose' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'firearm Discharged at Dwelling House' 'organised Criminal Activity']

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 Trial / Applications by Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty on Count 18 at the Close of the Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence was capable of establishing count 18 against Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi.' "Whether the agreed criminal enterprise to shoot at Mrs Hamzy's townhouse had come to an end before Witness L fired the shots." 'Whether the shooting actually carried out fell within the scope of the original joint criminal enterprise or was incidental to it.' "Whether Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi contemplated the possibility that Witness L might shoot at another townhouse within the same complex while targeting people near Mrs Hamzy's home."]

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence capable of supporting findings that the original criminal enterprise had not ended, that the shooting carried out by Witness L was within the scope of the joint criminal enterprise or incidental to it, and that it was within the contemplation of Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi that a person or house other than the agreed target might be shot at once Witness L reached the scene. Those factual questions were for the jury, so a directed verdict was not available.

Court Disposition

Applications refused.

Orders

  • ['Applications by Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi for a directed verdict of not guilty on count 18 are refused.']