Parhizkar v R [2014] NSWCCA 240

Parhizkar v R [2014] NSWCCA 240

By majority, the trial judge's directions adequately conveyed that "present together" in s 93B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was to be given its ordinary meaning and was a factual question for the jury; the Crown was not required to prove that the 12 persons were in close proximity or close enough to assist each other by force. The other asserted trial errors caused no miscarriage of justice, and no sentencing error was established because the relevant detention circumstances were not put before the sentencing judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction for Riot and Sentence From R V Ali; R V Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871
Outcome
Leave granted to appeal against conviction and sentence; both appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['riot' 'affray' 'meaning of "present Together"' 'jury Directions' 'cross Examination' 'discharge of Jury' 'jury Access to Transcripts' 'immigration Detention and Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['riot' 'affray' 'meaning of "present Together"' 'jury Directions' 'cross Examination' 'discharge of Jury' 'jury Access to Transcripts' 'immigration Detention and Sentencing']

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 and Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction for Riot and Sentence From R V Ali; R V Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the meaning of "present together" in s 93B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' 'Whether persons found not guilty of riot but guilty of affray could be relied on as part of the 12 persons present together using or threatening unlawful violence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in not allowing cross-examination of a witness about viewing footage of the disturbance on the internet.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in not discharging the jury after publication of a potentially prejudicial article.' "Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury access to transcripts of counsels' addresses and the summing up." "Whether the sentencing judge erred by not making a quantified allowance for the applicant's restrictive immigration detention while awaiting trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the trial judge's directions adequately conveyed that "present together" in s 93B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was to be given its ordinary meaning and was a factual question for the jury; the Crown was not required to prove that the 12 persons were in close proximity or close enough to assist each other by force. The other asserted trial errors caused no miscarriage of justice, and no sentencing error was established because the relevant detention circumstances were not put before the sentencing judge.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to appeal against conviction and sentence; both appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the applicant to appeal against his conviction for the offence of riot.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'Leave granted to the applicant to appeal against the sentence on the conviction for riot.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']