Jawid v R [2015] NSWDC 358

Jawid v R [2015] NSWDC 358

The appeal was allowed because the District Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to say "I will shoot you" in the first voice message. The Court heard only a "shoo" or "shoe" sound, accepted that the appellant was a non-native English speaker who was emotionally agitated and affected by alcohol, noted that he was capable of pronouncing terminal "T" sounds, and considered that the accompanying text message used "show" rather than "shoot".

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Recorded in the Downing Centre Local Court on 9 March 2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['using a Carriage Service to Make a Threat to Cause Serious Harm' 'conviction Appeal' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'voice Message Evidence' 'mispronunciation by Non Native English Speaker']
['criminal Law'] ['using a Carriage Service to Make a Threat to Cause Serious Harm' 'conviction Appeal' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'voice Message Evidence' 'mispronunciation by Non Native English Speaker']

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 Conviction Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Recorded in the Downing Centre Local Court on 9 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first voice message contained the word "shoot" or a sound consistent with "shoo" or "shoe".' "Whether the appellant threatened to shoot the complainant or harm the complainant's family within the meaning of the charged offence." 'Whether the Crown proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the District Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to say "I will shoot you" in the first voice message. The Court heard only a "shoo" or "shoe" sound, accepted that the appellant was a non-native English speaker who was emotionally agitated and affected by alcohol, noted that he was capable of pronouncing terminal "T" sounds, and considered that the accompanying text message used "show" rather than "shoot".

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Conviction recorded and the sentence passed by Magistrate Crompton sitting in the Downing Centre Local Court on 9 March 2015 set aside']