Bazzi v R [2024] NSWDC 491
The magistrate failed to consider the statutory defence under s 193C(4) Crimes Act 1900 and to apply the correct onus of proof. On reconsideration, the appellant established on the balance of probabilities that the money found was from a legitimate source. The appeal is allowed, the conviction and related orders are set aside, and the aggregate term of imprisonment varied and to be served by way of ICO.
- Parties
- Appellant: Hussein Bazzi; Crown: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Local Court to District Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Appeals, Proceeds of Crime, Sentencing Procedures
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hussein Bazzi
Appellant
Rex
Crown
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Local Court to District Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the magistrate erred in finding the cash in possession was proceeds of crime
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence regarding the legitimate source of the money
- 3 Whether the defence under s 193C(4) Crimes Act 1900 was established
Ratio Decidendi
The magistrate failed to consider the statutory defence under s 193C(4) Crimes Act 1900 and to apply the correct onus of proof. On reconsideration, the appellant established on the balance of probabilities that the money found was from a legitimate source. The appeal is allowed, the conviction and related orders are set aside, and the aggregate term of imprisonment varied and to be served by way of ICO.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Conviction and penalty for sequence 006 set aside
- Forfeiture order for sequence 006 set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment