SKAF, Bilal - Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 45

SKAF, Bilal - Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 45

The application was refused because none of the three matters relied on raised a doubt or question as to Bilal Skaf's guilt or as to the evidence demonstrating his guilt. The psychiatric evidence did not cause unease or disquiet because the complainant's evidence identifying Bilal Skaf and the Chullora industrial estate was strongly corroborated by independent telephone records and incriminating intercepted calls, and the Court did not accept the assumption that her recollection was exclusively derived from dreams or nightmares. No specific jury direction about dream-derived recollection was sought or required, and there was no relevant breach of the prosecution's disclosure obligation...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 78 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 for an Inquiry Into Convictions and Referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal / Post Conviction Review Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['inquiry Subsequent to Conviction' 'doubt or Question as to Guilt' 'reliability of Complainant Evidence' 'dreams, Nightmares and Flashbacks as Sources of Recollection' 'jury Directions' 'prosecution Disclosure Obligations' 'sexual Assault Convictions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'post Conviction Review'] ['inquiry Subsequent to Conviction' 'doubt or Question as to Guilt' 'reliability of Complainant Evidence' 'dreams, Nightmares and Flashbacks as Sources of Recollection' 'jury Directions' 'prosecution Disclosure Obligations' 'sexual Assault Convictions']

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

Application Under S 78 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 for an Inquiry Into Convictions and Referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal / Post Conviction Review Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether expert psychiatric evidence about recollections said to be derived from dreams or nightmares gave rise to a doubt or question as to Bilal Skaf's guilt or as to any part of the evidence in the case." 'Whether the trial judge was required to give a specific direction about the alleged unreliability of evidence derived from dreams or flashbacks.' 'Whether the prosecution breached its duty of disclosure by failing to disclose before trial that the complainant had said the new sequence of events came to her in a dream.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because none of the three matters relied on raised a doubt or question as to Bilal Skaf's guilt or as to the evidence demonstrating his guilt. The psychiatric evidence did not cause unease or disquiet because the complainant's evidence identifying Bilal Skaf and the Chullora industrial estate was strongly corroborated by independent telephone records and incriminating intercepted calls, and the Court did not accept the assumption that her recollection was exclusively derived from dreams or nightmares. No specific jury direction about dream-derived recollection was sought or required, and there was no relevant breach of the prosecution's disclosure obligation...

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']