Ansari v The Queen [2010] HCA 18

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ

Matter No S287/2009

HAJAMAIDEEN MOHAMED ANSARI APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Matter No S288/2009

ABDUL AZEES MOHAMED ANSARI APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Ansari v The Queen

Ansari v The Queen

[2010] HCA 18

26 May 2010

S287/2009 & S288/2009

ORDER

In each matter, the appeal is dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

S J Odgers SC with W P Lowe for the appellant in each matter (instructed by Ford Criminal Lawyers)

P W Neil SC for the respondent in each matter (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Ansari v The Queen

Ansari v The Queen

Criminal law – Conspiracy – Fault element – Recklessness – Where appellants charged with conspiracy to deal with money where risk existed money would be used as instrument of crime – Whether charges bad in law because of inherent inconsistency in proving conspiracy where fault element of offence the object of conspiracy is recklessness – R v LK [2010] HCA 17.

Words and phrases – "conspiracy to commit an offence", "instrument of crime".

Criminal Code (Cth), ss 5.4, 11.5, 400.3(2).

FRENCH CJ.

Introduction

1. On 15 March 2006 the appellants and their brother, Abdul Jaleel Mohamed Ansari, were arraigned upon a joint indictment in the District Court of New South Wales on two counts of conspiracy under s 11.5 of the Criminal Code (Cth) ("the Code") to commit an offence against Commonwealth law known broadly as money laundering. The three men pleaded not guilty. The appellants were found guilty on each count. The jury were unable to reach a verdict in relation to their brother. 2. The appellants appealed against their convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. They did so on the ground that the offences of which they had been convicted were not known to the law. They contended that the charges against them were bad because they alleged a mental state involving an intention which contemplated future reckless behaviour. On 14 August 2007, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed their appeals[1]. They applied for special leave to appeal to this Court on 12 September 2007. Their applications lapsed, but were later reinstated. On 2 October 2009 special leave was granted. The appeals were heard immediately after R v LK[2]. These reasons should be read with those in LK so far as they relate to the elements of conspiracy under the Code. 3. For the reasons that follow the appeals must be dismissed.