Raad v R [2012] NSWCCA 268

Raad v R [2012] NSWCCA 268

The convictions on counts 1 and 7 were not unreasonable because, if Ms Ahearn was accepted, there was ample evidence that the applicant participated in the armed robbery common purpose knowing that Koloamatangi had a loaded gun, and that use of the gun to wound someone to prevent apprehension was within the contemplated possibilities. The verdicts concerning co-accused did not make the applicant's convictions inconsistent because the evidence and its significance differed materially for Lopeti and Faraj. The conviction on count 4 could not stand because proof that the applicant knew of a loaded gun and planned armed robbery did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he actually...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing After District Court Trial and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; conviction on count 4 set aside and acquittal entered; appeal otherwise dismissed, with directions for any further sentence submissions.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Common Purpose' 'witness Unreliability Warning' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 165' 'leave to Add Ground of Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Common Purpose' 'witness Unreliability Warning' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 165' 'leave to Add Ground of Appeal']

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 Appeal Against Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing After District Court Trial and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts of guilty on counts 1, 4 and 7 were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' "Whether the jury's failure to convict co-accused made the applicant's convictions inconsistent or unreasonable." 'Whether there was sufficient evidence that the applicant contemplated a substantial risk that the co-offender would shoot at a police officer with intent to murder.' "Whether the trial judge's directions concerning the potential unreliability of Yasmin Ahearn were inadequate under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165." 'Whether leave should be granted to raise a new inconsistency ground at the appeal hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on counts 1 and 7 were not unreasonable because, if Ms Ahearn was accepted, there was ample evidence that the applicant participated in the armed robbery common purpose knowing that Koloamatangi had a loaded gun, and that use of the gun to wound someone to prevent apprehension was within the contemplated possibilities. The verdicts concerning co-accused did not make the applicant's convictions inconsistent because the evidence and its significance differed materially for Lopeti and Faraj. The conviction on count 4 could not stand because proof that the applicant knew of a loaded gun and planned armed robbery did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he actually...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; conviction on count 4 set aside and acquittal entered; appeal otherwise dismissed, with directions for any further sentence submissions.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal.' "Set aside the applicant's conviction on Count 4 and enter an acquittal in its place." 'Direct that any further submissions in respect of sentence be filed and served according to the following timetable: submissions by the applicant by 16 January 2013; submissions in reply on...