NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Barzani v R [2024] NSWCCA 188 Hearing dates: 23 September 2024 Date of orders: 16 October 2024 Decision date: 16 October 2024 Before: N Adams J at [1] Chen J at [2] Rigg J at [121] Decision: (1) Order that the time for filing the Notice of Appeal be extended to 30 July 2024. (2) Grant leave to appeal. (3) Allow the appeal against the conviction in relation to count 4, but otherwise dismiss the appeal in relation to counts 1-3. (4) Quash the conviction of the applicant on count 4 of the indictment. (5) In lieu thereof enter a verdict of acquittal on count 4. (6) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 30 July 2020. (7) Remit the matter to the District Court for the applicant to be re-sentenced in relation to counts 1-3. (8) List the matter for mention before Judge Pickering SC on 15 November 2024 at 9:30am to fix a date for re-sentence. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeals against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Where co-accused have successfully appealed their convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the basis that the evidence of a key Crown witness had serious difficulties which undermined his and its credibility and reliability and in circumstances where there was no objective supporting evidence linking the co-accused to the offending – Where the Crown case against the applicant for counts 1-3 was supported by corroborating evidence – Order extending time to appeal against conviction made – Leave to appeal granted – Conviction for count 4 quashed – Appeal otherwise dismissed in relation to counts 1-3 – Matter remitted to the District Court for re-sentence Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Cases Cited: Cabot (a pseudonym) v R [2018] NSWCCA 265 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7 Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15 Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25 Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29; (2023) 97 ALJR 758 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Majeed v R [2022] NSWCCA 105 Palmer v R [2018] NSWCCA 205 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Davidson (2009) 75 NSWLR 150; [2009] NSWCCA 150 R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13 R v Keenan (2009) 236 CLR 397; [2009] HCA 1 RM v R [2024] NSWCCA 148 Sakhra v R [2021] NSWCCA 187 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jutyar Mustafic Barzani (Applicant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Moutasallem (Applicant) S Lind (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate