Abouhaidar v R [2022] NSWCCA 57

Abouhaidar v R [2022] NSWCCA 57

The application for an extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal lacked merit. It was plainly open to the jury to reject the applicant's account that he believed the consignments contained polymer and to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the third and fourth consignments contained illicit drugs. The Crown's circumstantial case, including intercepted communications, text messages, surveillance, DHL records, the use of code, the applicant's efforts to obtain proof of Customs seizure, and the applicant's admitted and demonstrated lies, was very powerful; the polymer hypothesis was not a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
Legal Topics
['attempting to Possess a Commercial Quantity of an Unlawfully Imported Border Controlled Drug' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'alternative Hypothesis Consistent With Innocence' 'extension of Time' 'counterfeit Money']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['attempting to Possess a Commercial Quantity of an Unlawfully Imported Border Controlled Drug' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'alternative Hypothesis Consistent With Innocence' 'extension of Time' 'counterfeit Money']

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 an Extension of Time Within Which to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conviction for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether the alternative hypothesis that the applicant believed the consignments contained polymer for making counterfeit banknotes could reasonably be excluded.' 'Whether an extension of time should be granted to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal lacked merit. It was plainly open to the jury to reject the applicant's account that he believed the consignments contained polymer and to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the third and fourth consignments contained illicit drugs. The Crown's circumstantial case, including intercepted communications, text messages, surveillance, DHL records, the use of code, the applicant's efforts to obtain proof of Customs seizure, and the applicant's admitted and demonstrated lies, was very powerful; the polymer hypothesis was not a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction refused.']