HAMED v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 219

HAMED v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 219

The conviction was upheld because there was evidence that the money belonged to Australia Post or was at least taken from lawful possession, and the cumulative circumstantial case, including DNA matching the appellant on the glove and balaclava, CCTV evidence, his belongings in the Holden Commodore, and the rejection of his explanation, made it open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was one of the robbers. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge identified relevant objective and subjective factors, did not contravene the De Simoni principle by treating the knife as part of the objective seriousness, and the sentence was not shown to be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'ownership or Possession of Stolen Property' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'de Simoni Principle']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'ownership or Possession of Stolen Property' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'de Simoni Principle']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved that the money stolen was property belonging to Australia Post as alleged in the indictment.' 'Whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable, unsafe, unjust or dangerous where the appellant was not identified during or immediately after the robbery and the Crown case was circumstantial.' "Whether DNA evidence on a pink glove and balaclava, together with other circumstantial evidence, supported the jury's finding that the appellant was one of the robbers." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge contravened the De Simoni principle by taking into account that the appellant had a knife.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was upheld because there was evidence that the money belonged to Australia Post or was at least taken from lawful possession, and the cumulative circumstantial case, including DNA matching the appellant on the glove and balaclava, CCTV evidence, his belongings in the Holden Commodore, and the rejection of his explanation, made it open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was one of the robbers. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge identified relevant objective and subjective factors, did not contravene the De Simoni principle by treating the knife as part of the objective seriousness, and the sentence was not shown to be...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'The appeal against sentence dismissed.']