R v Qaumi & Ors (No 58) [2016] NSWSC 1066

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 58) [2016] NSWSC 1066

There is evidence capable of establishing the matters to be determined in relation to count 18, including whether the criminal enterprise instigated by the applicants encompassed or was incidental to the actual shooting that took place. It is for the jury to decide whether the venture ended or whether what occurred was within its scope; applications for directed verdicts are refused as the Crown case must be taken at its highest.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Farhad Qaumi; Applicant: Mumtaz Qaumi; Accused: Jamil Qaumi; Accused: Mohammed Zarshoy; Accused: Mohammed Kalal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Directed Verdict at the Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
applications for directed verdict refused
Legal Topics
Joint Criminal Enterprise, Directed Verdict, Circumstantial Evidence
Criminal Law Joint Criminal Enterprise Directed Verdict Circumstantial Evidence

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Farhad Qaumi

Applicant

Mumtaz Qaumi

Applicant

Jamil Qaumi

Accused

Mohammed Zarshoy

Accused

Mohammed Kalal

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Directed Verdict at the Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence is capable of establishing charge in count 18
  2. 2 Whether the alleged joint criminal enterprise continued or came to an end
  3. 3 Whether the crime completed was within scope of the original agreed criminal venture

Ratio Decidendi

There is evidence capable of establishing the matters to be determined in relation to count 18, including whether the criminal enterprise instigated by the applicants encompassed or was incidental to the actual shooting that took place. It is for the jury to decide whether the venture ended or whether what occurred was within its scope; applications for directed verdicts are refused as the Crown case must be taken at its highest.

Court Disposition

applications for directed verdict refused

Orders

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