Benbrika & Ors v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281

Benbrika & Ors v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 - VSCA 2010 case summary — Zoe

[25]

Benbrika: the sentence for membership of the organisation was reduced from seven years' imprisonment to five years. There was no change to the sentence for directing the organisation (15 years) or the total effective sentence (15 years) or the non-parole period (12 years);
Joud: the sentence for membership of the organisation was reduced from six years and six months' imprisonment to four years and six months. There was no change to the sentence for intentionally providing resources to the organisation (eight years). The sentence for attempting to make funds available to the organisation was reduced from eight years' imprisonment to five years, because the objective gravity of Joud's offending was more towards the lower end of the range than a sentence of eight years implied and because of the overlap with the membership offence. The total effective sentence was reduced from ten years' imprisonment to eight years, and the non-parole period from seven years and six months to six years;
Sayadi: the sentence for membership of the organisation was reduced from six years and six months' imprisonment to four years and six months. The sentence for intentionally providing resources to the organisation was reduced from eight years' imprisonment to seven years, to ensure appropriate relativity with Joud. The total effective sentence was reduced from eight years' imprisonment to seven years and the non-parole period from six years to five years and three months;
Merhi: to ensure appropriate sentencing relativity, the sentence for membership of the terrorist organisation was reduced from six years' imprisonment to four years, and the non-parole period from four years and six months to three years;
A Raad: to achieve parity with Joud, the sentence for membership of the organisation was reduced from six years and six months' imprisonment to four years and six months. There was no change to the sentence for intentionally providing resources to the organisation (eight years) but, for the same reasons as related to Joud, the sentence for attempting to make funds available to the organisation was reduced from eight years to five years. The total effective sentence was reduced from ten years' imprisonment to eight years, and the non-parole period from seven years and six months to six years;
E Raad: to ensure appropriate sentencing relativity, the sentence for membership of the organisation was reduced from six years' imprisonment to four years, and for attempting to make funds available to the organisation from six years' imprisonment to four years. As a result, the total effective sentence was reduced from seven years and six months' imprisonment to six years, and the non-parole period from five years and nine months to four years and six months;
Haddara: to ensure appropriate sentencing relativity, the sentence for membership of the organisation was reduced from six years to four years.

[120]

In approaching this issue, you must put out of your mind anything you know about what an organisation is outside or what it might be in some other circumstance. We've got to apply the law as it applies to this Act, and whilst it's not unusual, it's somewhat complex, and I'm going to have to explain it to you carefully.

The law defines an organisation as a body corporate or an unincorporated body. A body corporate is a body which is registered with [the Companies] Office or something and has an independent existence apart from its members. It's a legal entity. You can completely forget that. No one is suggesting here that any body corporate is involved. The second part of the definition is an unincorporated body. This is a legal question, and the directions I give you about it, you must follow. As I say, it is exclusive of any other idea or concept about organisation you might have had or got from anywhere.

An unincorporated body is a body which, of itself, has no separate legal existence apart from its members. In other words, it consists of people, a group or collection of people who come together for a particular shared aim or aims, it might have one aim, it might have many, or purposes. It may have characteristics which suggest its existence; it may have some sort of structure; there may be a leader or a director; there may be other people who hold or assume other offices in the organisation. Here the Crown alleges that Benbrika, Joud, Sayadi and Ahmed Raad held leadership positions in the terrorist organisation which it says existed. You will have to consider these allegations in due course when we get to the evidence.

There may be a common fund for the purposes of the body. Here the Crown alleges that there is, and that it's called the sandooq, an Arabic word which merely means box which is commonly applied to a communal fund. Again, you will have to consider this aspect when we get to the issues that raise it.

The body may have some method of including or excluding persons from membership. There may or may not be some degree of formality to its meetings, whether as to time and place or how they are conducted. It may or may not have a name, either publicly known or used internally by its members. All or some of these characteristics may be present but whether some of them are or not, to constitute a body, there must be more than a fluctuating or amorphous group of individuals. There must be some measure at least of stability of membership. Even if some members may have joined and some may have left during the period of its existence.

You might be able to be assisted by my pointing it out to you and you realizing it because you know it already, that a body is different, say, to a crowd. You could say a crowd gathered outside the pub where there was a fight, and half an hour later, you could say the crowd was still there. It would be unlikely that it would be the same crowd or the same individuals. You wouldn't describe that as a body. That might be an amorphous group of individuals who have come together because they were interested in the police arresting someone causing a commotion and the commotion goes on a bit further and then people begin talking, some leave and some come back in half an hour's time. To say the crowd is still there as a matter of use of English is not unreasonable and you might well say it, but if you think about it, it's highly unlikely it's composed of the same people who were there half an hour ago. It might be, of course, they all might have wanted to watch the end of it. But you wouldn't describe that as a body. It's got to have something more to it than that. It's got to have some sort of form.

The sorts of criteria that I have set out there are the sorts of things that you look at when you are looking at the evidence, and if you see them, you say, "That is another indicator", or, "It's not an indicator". It's a matter ultimately for you in accordance with those legal directions that I have given you. That is the term "organisation".[17]

[166]

First, an unincorporated group must be capable of being described as a "body" of persons to fall within the definition in s 2 of the RMA [Resource Management Act 1991]. Individuals whose common interests have brought them together for a temporary purpose without any formal organisation may not fit that description. This seems to follow from Discount Brands Ltd v Westfield (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] NZSC 17; [2005] 2 NZLR 597. In that case this Court had said that an incorporated society whose registration had lapsed did not exist as a legal entity at the relevant time for the purposes of the RMA. Blanchard J said:

[127] That finding cannot be sustained. It overlooks the definition of "person" in s 2 of the Act:

person includes the Crown, a corporation sole, and also a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate: ... .

Northcote Mainstreet was undoubtedly an unincorporated body of persons, during the interregnum between the lapsing of its incorporation and its restoration to the register under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. The Court of Appeal said in Edwards v Legal Services Agency [at [28]] that a number of group of persons:

"... must be regarded as a body if there is such regulation of their internal affairs that there can be said to be a structure by which they can be recognised as a collective entity - the unincorporated equivalent of a body corporate."

[128] Northcote Mainstreet continued to operate in accordance with its rules during the interregnum, for part of that time not appreciating that it had ceased to be registered. It acted throughout as a collective entity. There was not, and on the facts there could not be, any suggestion on the part of Discount Brands that through inactivity, the unincorporated body has "spontaneously" dissolved.

Tipping J said:

[170] In considering this issue I revert to the definition of person. It says that the word includes "a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated". A corporate body is a legal entity in its own right distinct from its members. An unincorporate body of persons is not. An unincorporate body is rather like a partnership. It is recognised as having a separate existence, but in law it is no more than the aggregation of the individuals who are its members.

[171] Whether one views Northcote Mainstreet as a corporate or unincorporate body is not the immediate point. My point is that by making unincorporate bodies persons for [RMA] purposes, Parliament seems to have been looking more to substance than to legal existence or form. The concept of person is clearly designed to go beyond legal persons. It is necessary to be able to identify a body, but not a body which is legally recognised in its own right. The statutory policy evident from this expansive approach to persons suggests that a body of persons, as a body, ought to be able to rely on attributes pertaining to its individual members. That is an easier concept when the body is not a separate legal person than when it is. But in the present context the proposition must apply in both instances. The answer cannot, in this field, depend on issues akin to whether a corporate veil should be lifted.

These passages suggest that, in order to meet the definition, the unincorporated group must have some form of internal structure which enables it to take and implement decisions as a collective. If the group exists as a "collective entity" it can properly be viewed as a "body" of persons.

Second, and following on from the point just made, a group constituting a "body of persons" is likely to have a similar general structure to a company, in the sense that it will have a decision-making process, people who have governance responsibilities and such like (a pseudo-corporate structure). Consequently, as is said in Ormerod at 243:

When an unincorporated association is prosecuted, presumably the court must proceed by analogy to the law relating to corporations. Such associations have officials corresponding to the controlling officers of corporations and it is inconceivable that the association is liable for the act of any one of its members who has no part in the general management of its affairs.

In other words, given that the unincorporated group must be capable of being described as a "body of persons" in order to be subject to the RMA, the attribution of actions which breach the RMA to the body as opposed simply to particular individuals is feasible. Practical difficulties in relation to matters such as service and enforcement can be addressed by means of the pseudo-corporate structure that an organisation meeting the definition of "body of persons" will have. We consider that this is the appropriate approach in the absence of specific provisions dealing with unincorporated bodies in respect of offences under the RMA. [54]

[278]

The question the Court has to determine in deciding the relevance and admissibility of these objects is whether they pass a threshold test for relevance. Relevance is often a matter of degree. The finding of a battery by itself would not have raised, one would have thought, the relevance of it as an item of evidence in this case to a sufficient level to make it admissible. But a battery found connected to a spark plug would enable a jury to draw an inference that somebody was trying to create something that would create a spark. The jury would not need any special electrical knowledge to draw that inference, even if the person who had the knowledge then went on to say: "But it is not going to work". ... [I]t is common knowledge that a dry-cell battery contains an electric charge, wires transfer current, the concept of a spark plug conveys the idea of a spark, and that a spark is needed to ignite things, particularly inflammable or explosive substances. In my opinion, the evidence does reach the threshold for admissibility on the case as it is presently stated.

The second limb of the defence contention is that nothing connects the Melbourne accused to these objects. There is no doubt that some of the Melbourne accused went to Louth, and there is no doubt that the Sydney residents can be linked to the area surrounding this campsite. That they were friends of the Melbourne accused can be established. That they were at the property at the same time can be established. The inference that the jury could draw is that they camped together and camped in the same area. If they drew that inference, there would be a connection between the Melbourne accused and the campsite, and, accordingly, with the campfire and with what was found in the fire. The inference need not be the only inference open; the evidence is not central to the Crown's circumstantial case.

Whether that inference is drawn is a matter for the jury after hearing the evidence and argument. In the circumstances I will admit the evidence that this material was found in the campfire at Louth. If, as I indicated in argument, there is some change in that evidence before this matter is finally put before the jury, there may be another argument available, but on the material as it presently stands, that evidence - the evidence of Kelleher and the evidence of the police officers of finding the material - is relevant and admissible.[117]

[610]

When a witness of the background of Mr Atik gives evidence, the assessment of his evidence is still a matter for the jury. However, you must take into account all of the matters to which I have just referred, including his prior inconsistent statement, his frank agreement that he engages in all of these other illegal and dishonest activities and that he has lied on many other occasions. They are relevant matters for you to take into account when you determine whether he's telling the truth or not. He is a witness who falls into a class of witnesses in respect of whom it would be extremely dangerous for you to reach a conviction on his evidence unless you were satisfied that that evidence is supported by other evidence. The Crown is not asking you here to convict these men on his evidence. The Crown points to a host of other evidence, but insofar, and as you are considering Atik's evidence, you must take into account all of these things. In particular, I give you a particular warning about the conversation on the way to the mag wheel shop. That conversation, of course, was only between Benbrika and Atik. There is no support for that conversation in any of the other material except, of course, the general support that the Crown points to as to the fact that the Crown alleges that the other material adds up to an intention by the organisation which the Crown says exists to foster or prepare for a terrorist act, but there is no other support for the specific conversation which Atik says occurred in the van on the way to the mag wheels shop, so you have to bear that in mind. It is a conversation relayed to you by a liar for which there is no other support.

It is not that there is not support for the trip to the mag wheels shop. The Crown has put before you a series of phone calls which occurred at about the time this was happening which, if you look at them, you might come to the conclusion is support for the proposition that Atik and Benbrika travelled together in the car to the mag wheels shop, in Mr Benbrika's wife's 1989 Tarago van, but, of course, the fact that they travelled in the van, or the fact that you might find that they travelled in the van together, does not assist very much on the question of whether the conversation took place.

All of that, you must take into account in determining where you place Mr Atik's evidence, not only in relation to the conversation on the way to the mag wheels shop, but in relation to the rest of his evidence, to the way in which he implicates a large number, if not all, of the accused in one way or another. You could examine that evidence and examine whether there is support for it in other evidence, other independent evidence. The Crown says, of course, that there is support for the whole case derived from the listening devices and telephone intercepts and that you don't need to rely on Atik at all, and you might ultimately come to the conclusion that you would be better off determining this case without reference to Atik's evidence at all. That is a matter entirely for you. My direction to you is that if you are considering Atik's evidence, you must do so in the light of the fact that he has that considerable cloud hanging over his head, that he has all of those things.

The Crown says that Atik is not an essential witness insofar as the Crown case is concerned in any event, and that is, of course, a matter entirely for you, but if you are examining Atik's evidence and you were proposing to act to any part of it, that is where he implicates Joud or Merhi or indeed any of them in anything, you would want to consider whether there is independent support for that evidence somewhere else, and you would look for it in the listening device and telephone intercept evidence.

The conversations that surround the mag wheels episode are in the red folder, which is exhibit 161, and that is the transcripts again, and you can get those on CD as well if you want to listen to them, yourselves.

I should have said to you, having given you a direction about Atik's evidence, he may also fit into the class of witnesses who are called accomplices, that is to say people who are also involved in the same crime as the persons who are charged. It matters very little in this case because of the direction I have given you in any event, but if you thought that he was an accomplice, you would similarly look for the same sort of support for his evidence before you acted upon it. That is not to say you cannot act on that evidence, but you bring your own common sense to bear on it and you look at the witness and you make up your mind. It's your function; not mine.

[624]

Count 5 And the said DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS further INFORMS THE COURT AND CHARGES that between about 1 July 2004 and about 8 November 2005 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria and elsewhere Fadl SAYADI did, contrary to paragraph 102.7(1) of the Criminal Code, intentionally provide to a terrorist organisation resources, in that he made himself available to the organisation as a source of supply, support, information, aid or encouragement that would help the organisation directly or indirectly foster or prepare the doing of a terrorist act, by undertaking a leadership and administrative role in the organisation, knowing that it was a terrorist organisation.

The organisation was a terrorist organisation in that it was an organisation directly or indirectly fostering or preparing the doing of a terrorist act.

The "terrorist act" was an action or threat of action involving the detonation of an explosive or incendiary device or the use of weapons.

The action or threat of action was to be done or threatened with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, namely the pursuit of violent jihad, and with the intention of either:

a) Coercing or influencing by intimidation the Government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country or a part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

b) Intimidating the public or a section of the public.

The action, if carried out, would:

a) Cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

b) Cause serious damage to property; or

c) Cause a person's death; or

d) Endanger a person's life, other than the person taking the action; or

e) Create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

The action or threat of action was not to be done as advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action.

Alternatively, if the action or threat of action were advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action, it would not be of a kind not intended to:

a) Cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

b) Cause a person's death; or

c) Endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or

d) Create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

[695]

Statements made by an accused in a record of interview are evidence against the accused, himself, but like all other statements made in the absence of someone, they are not evidence against anybody else. So you can't use anything that is in Ahmed Raad's record of interview as inculpating, or rendering guilty anyone else in this trial. It's only what he said about himself.

There are a number of matters in that record of interview I should draw your attention to. If you are going to note them, they are all numbered questions and I will note them. He was able to identify all of the other accused with varying degrees of familiarity. That is not evidence against any of the other accused. It's evidence against him of associating with them, because he concedes that he knows them. That is as far as that goes. They are questions between questions 67 and 119.

There are questions asked of him about a number of different topics. At 130 he said that about a year and a half ago he became religious. Before that, he wasn't overly religious, he was "into sex, drugs and rock and roll" as he put it. At 141, he said, "I class myself as a Muslim." At question 148, he was asked, "Okay, what's your opinions in regards to jihad?" And he said, "Yeah, nothing wrong with that."

Then he discusses jihad with the police officer in terms of self-defence. The police officer says, "When, then, in your opinion, [is] jihad for the defence of the religion justified?" At question 154. "If youse come to my house for no reason like youse did and you try to shoot me, but which youse didn't do, I would obviously try to fight back. That is called jihad."

At question 167, he gives a long answer to a question. "There are people who are engaging in Islamic jihad." That's what the police officer says in an interrogative form. The answer is, "But the ones that are doing the wrong thing, their wrong, obviously ... (reads) ... bombed on while they are asleep". Then at 158, he says, "I'd agree with that."

He is asked about sites on the internet and he says there are thousands of sites. At 174, "What is your view or understanding of a terrorist act?" And the answer is, "Killing innocent people." Later on at 178 he suggests that, he accedes to a proposition that if a bank robber goes into a bank and shoots the teller, is that a terrorist act, and he says, "Yeah."

Between questions 183 and 189, he talks about justification for terrorist acts and says he doesn't know whether a terrorist act is justified in Australia or not. He's not learned enough to be able to say.

At questions 198 to 226, there is a discussion about the sandooq, the fact that people put in, and he is asked, "What's the money used for?" At question 214. He says, "Oh, just to help anyone that's in need."

Further on, he's asked about court fines, and he says, "No, unless they haven't got the money to pay it. They pay it back. If they are really bad in debt, they can't pay it, then what can you do?"

He was asked at question 205, "Have you kept details of who has contributed to the sandooq?" He says, "No." And at 200 he was asked, "Have you been involved in either setting up a sandooq or running a sandooq?" He says "Yeah." 201, "And how long have you been operating a sandooq for?" "I don't know. ... (reads) ... just come to me and I do it."

Question 227, he's asked "Have you kept records?" "No." "None at all?" "No." He's asked, "Who needs to give permission for money to be used from the sandooq?" He says, "The sheikh." "Why is that?" ... (reads) ... giving money to anyone."

That is not evidence against Benbrika. It's evidence only of Ahmed Raad's knowledge of the sandooq and its workings.

The questioning goes over to a group. At question 240, this is referring to Benbrika, "If he told you to set up a sandooq, you'd do that?" Answer: "Yeah, for the right reasons." 241: "If he told you to set up a sandooq for the group that he was setting up, would you do that?" Answer: "What group was he setting up." Question: "The group that Benbrika has established for the purposes of committing a terrorist act?" Answer: "I don't know of no group." He's questioned at 248, "Do you refer to you and your brothers as belonging to a jemaah?" Answer: "Not really." Question: "Would you refer to you and your brothers as the jemaah?" Answer: "No."

Then he's asked further on about using the internet. At 286, he's asked, "Do you think Islam is under threat in Australia?" "Yeah." "For what reason?" Answer: "For killing innocent people." 288: "Whose killing innocent people?" Answer: "The soldiers." Question: "Australian soldiers?" "Yeah." Question: "And where are they doing that?" Answer: "In Iraq." Question: "Okay, anywhere else?" Answer: "Probably, I know, I know, where the Americans, Australian soldiers are." Question: "So your opinion is fairly strong in regard to Australian troops being overseas?" Answer: "Yes.

A couple of questions further down, the next question, "Do you think they should come home?" Answer: "Yes." Do you think they should be punished?" "Yeah, not all of them. The ones that done the right thing done the right, the ones that done the wrong, they done the wrong." "How do you think we can get the Australian troops to come home?" Answer: "I dunno, I'm not in politics."

At 307, he's asked about his views on stealing, dishonesty. At 308, he says, "Obviously you can't do it." 309: "What about criminal behaviour in general, deceptions and fraud?" Answer: "Obviously you can't do that, too." Question 318, "Your personal opinion, do you think, would you commit criminal acts to raise money for the purposes of jihad?" Answer: "I don't commit criminal acts."

There is a conversation at 330 and following about the bayat. At 333, "I put it to you that you have given the bayat to Benbrika, what do you say about that?" Answer: "Well, I don't know, I don't remember."

He was asked about Ocean Grove, whether he went with others to Ocean Grove on a Friday night in February, and he says, "I don't remember, I've got a bad memory."

Question 350, "Have you been involved in criminal activity to raise money for the sandooq?" "No."

He was asked then about the garage conversation at 357. "Do you recall in September last year being in Ezzit's garage with Aimen Joud and discussing a stolen car?" His answer is, "Are you seriously wanting me to remember that?" 358," Do you steal cars often?" Answer: "No." "Do the other jemaah members steal cars often?" Answer: "I don't know." A couple of questions down, "Do you think you would remember that or forget it?" Answer: "No, I remember about the stolen car, don't worry about that." And then says he went to court for it, says he didn't steal the car, he doesn't know who did. And he's asked, "How did you get charged for it?" He said he had gone to court for it. He said it was parts in my garage. "For what purpose was the car stolen?", at 369 Answer: "I have no idea." He's asked further about the garage conversation and eventually the police officer says at 378, "You are denying this conversation took place?" Answer: "Yep, well, I don't remember it." Question: "You don't remember it?" Answer: "No." Question: "Does that mean it didn't take place or you don't remember it?" Answer: "Well, I reckon it didn't take place." That is repeated a couple of times, and so it goes on to the end.

The answers to that record of interview are admissible as evidence against Ahmed Raad...[245]

[715]

Now, that's the evidence and insofar as it's capable of shedding light, it sheds light which suggests Atik is telling the truth about Benbrika being with him on that [mag wheel shop] trip. Of course, it doesn't say anything about what was said on the trip, and you have to rely upon Atik for that, but if he's telling the truth about that, then you may think that that goes a long way to determine whether it's likely that he's telling the truth about what was said because the attack upon him is that he didn't go, so it couldn't have been said.

Well, what's the probabilities of there being a discussion about targets? As I drew your attention to yesterday, in the conversation on 4 March 2005 between Atik and Benbrika, there was clearly a discussion about planning that was apparently current to carry out a substantial terrorist act in the nature of a bombing attack. That conversation is, in our submission, unequivocal and Atik said that's what they were talking about.

And then there is the conversation at tab 440-441 between Benbrika and Haddara on 17 September 2005 in which Benbrika says, "Yeah, there is something being planned," essentially. "Things aren't going to go cold," so the Crown says that is consistent with the evidence of Atik as to what was discussed during that conversation that he says took place on the way to the mag wheel shop.

Ladies and gentlemen, we leave it entirely in your hands. It's a matter entirely for you whether you do or do not accept Mr Atik's evidence on those or any matters. His Honour will give you some directions as to how you should approach Atik because obviously, arising from his association with these accused, the question of his being a credible witness comes into very sharp focus and His Honour will give you some directions as to how you should properly approach his evidence, but the Crown says there's ample other evidence in the case which supports Mr Atik's version of events and creates a likelihood that what he has told you is true and accurate.

[821]

Sayadi gave the bayat to Benbrika,[352] he discussed with Benbrika which of the brothers had given Benbrika the bayat[353] and how information about someone having given the bayat had leaked out,[354] he recommended to Atik that he give the bayat to Benbrika and advised Benbrika to accept it from Atik and Bassam Raad as a means of controlling them;[355]
Sayadi referred to himself and Joud as the 'elders' of the organisation[356] and, in that role, vetted potential recruits for the organisation.[357] He also advocated greater use of 'tests' for the brothers to maintain security;[358]
Sayadi also played a role in gathering intelligence for the organisation[359] and in developing strategies to deflect and deal with the authorities. This included monitoring what was said about the group,[360] preparing for questioning by authorities,[361] and considering the implications of police and ASIO searches (including what materials the authorities might have obtained)[362] and how the future discovery of incriminating material could be prevented.[363] Sayadi was concerned about the difficulty of getting 'merchandise' required by the organisation,[364] and with what should be done if the authorities came to arrest them;[365]
when Sayadi was informed that his name 'has been listed with the State Security' in Lebanon and that he belonged 'to a certain society',[366] he reacted as if it were a threat to the organisation. He investigated suspected leaks of sensitive information and informers,[367] and reported to Benbrika;[368]
Sayadi participated in the trip to Sydney in December 2004,[369] the organisation for the Kinglake trip and follow-up after it,[370] planning for future trips to remote locations,[371] planning and arranging the trip to Ocean Grove (including undertaking a reconnaissance trip with Joud and Ahmed Raad beforehand),[372] and participating in the trip to Louth;[373]
Sayadi was entrusted with the knowledge, custody and concealment of the bomb-making diskettes which Merhi had brought to Benbrika for the jema'ah;[374]
Sayadi also organised venues for classes and meetings,[375] and bought a group laptop for the purpose.[376] He promoted the collection and dissemination of jihadi literature (the 'Nineteen Lions' and 'The Clarification of What Occurred in America'[377] and other literature about jihad and 'martyrdom operations'[378]) as well

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (1242 paragraphs)

Benbrika & Ors v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 (25 October 2010)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (66)