Sakhra v R [2021] NSWCCA 187

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sakhra v R [2021] NSWCCA 187 Hearing dates: 16 July 2021 Date of orders: 16 July 2021 Decision date: 11 August 2021 Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Wilson J at [89]; Ierace J at [90]. Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Quash the verdicts of guilty entered against counts 2 and 3 of the indictment. 4. In lieu thereof, enter verdicts of acquittal against counts 2 and 3 of the indictment. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – whether jury's verdicts unreasonable – two counts of armed robbery left to jury – victims did not identify appellant – no objective evidence connecting appellant with offences – objective evidence connecting person other than appellant with offences – Crown case dependent on evidence of driver – driver's evidence internally inconsistent – parts of driver's evidence inconsistent with appellant's involvement in offences – driver maintained his innocence despite having pleaded guilty – significance of driver's evidence being given through translator – convictions quashed Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 22 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 35, 97, 98 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 165 Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017 (2019) 267 CLR 350; [2019] HCA 9 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51 Innes v R [2018] NSWCCA 90; 272 A Crim R 351 KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417; [1997] HCA 54 Kim v R [2020] NSWCCA 288 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Palmer v R [2018] NSWCCA 205 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 Pethybridge v R [2020] NSWCCA 185 R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74 R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Usman Sakhra (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Johnston SC; D Pace (Appellant) M Kumar (Respondent)