Bargashoun v R [2023] NSWCCA 17

Bargashoun v R [2023] NSWCCA 17

The evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to kill the victim after firing the first two shots, particularly as subsequent shots were aimed at the torso at close range; the jury was not required to be unanimous as to the precise point when the intent was formed so long as, by the last shot, they were all satisfied as to intent; the trial judge’s directions regarding the standard of proof and unanimity were appropriate and did not amount to misdirection; appellate intervention was unwarranted.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Bargashoun; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Conviction; Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed after granting extension of time and leave to appeal.
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Conviction, Unreasonable Verdict, Jury Directions, Specific Intent, Standard of Proof, Unanimity Direction
Criminal Law Appeals Against Conviction Unreasonable Verdict Jury Directions Specific Intent Standard of Proof Unanimity Direction

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Bargashoun

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal Conviction; Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict of guilty for intent to murder was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by directing that the Crown did not have to prove particular facts beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to give a required unanimity direction regarding the acts constituting the offence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to kill the victim after firing the first two shots, particularly as subsequent shots were aimed at the torso at close range; the jury was not required to be unanimous as to the precise point when the intent was formed so long as, by the last shot, they were all satisfied as to intent; the trial judge’s directions regarding the standard of proof and unanimity were appropriate and did not amount to misdirection; appellate intervention was unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed after granting extension of time and leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Extend the time for filing the notice of appeal to 23 June 2022.
  • Grant leave to appeal.