R v Joseph Antoun, R v Antoine Antoun [2004] NSWCCA 268

R v Joseph Antoun, R v Antoine Antoun [2004] NSWCCA 268

The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in refusing to disqualify himself for apprehension of bias, there was evidence upon which a conviction for demanding money with menaces could properly be entered, including rejection of a genuine claim of right on all the evidence; no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by application of the rule in Browne v Dunn; and the verdict was not unreasonable in view of the evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted but the appeals against sentence were also dismissed as the sentences were within range and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and conduct involved.

Parties
Appellant: Joseph Antoun; Appellant: Antoine Antoun; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed; leave granted but sentence appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apprehension of Bias, Demanding Money With Menaces, Claim of Right, Judge Alone Trial, Unreasonable Verdict, Application of Browne V Dunn, Sentencing Appeal
Criminal Law Apprehension of Bias Demanding Money With Menaces Claim of Right Judge Alone Trial Unreasonable Verdict Application of Browne V Dunn Sentencing 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Antoun

Appellant

Antoine Antoun

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing applications to disqualify himself for apprehension of bias
  2. 2 Whether there was no case to answer and a verdict of acquittal should have been entered
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Browne v Dunn was misapplied resulting in miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in refusing to disqualify himself for apprehension of bias, there was evidence upon which a conviction for demanding money with menaces could properly be entered, including rejection of a genuine claim of right on all the evidence; no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by application of the rule in Browne v Dunn; and the verdict was not unreasonable in view of the evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted but the appeals against sentence were also dismissed as the sentences were within range and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and conduct involved.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed; leave granted but sentence appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Leave granted to appeal against sentence for both appellants