You are here:

Judgment handed down in Zandipour v The Queen

07 July 2017

The Court of Appeal (Chief Justice Warren, Justice Weinberg and Justice Kaye) today dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against his conviction and sentence for murder.

The applicant had stood trial for the murder of Joshua Hardy, whom he had violently attacked outside a McDonald’s restaurant in the early hours of 18 October 2014. He had hurled the victim head-first to the ground, and then immediately kicked him repeatedly to the head and neck, and finally stomped on his head. The victim had died from a lacerated vertebral artery, which had resulted in a subarachnoid haemorrhage.

The applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to a term of 20 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years.

He sought leave to appeal against his conviction on a number of grounds. First, whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury as to the need for unanimity with regard to the specific act or acts that caused death.  Secondly, whether the trial judge’s failure to provide a complete transcript of her charge to the jury in response to their request for such a transcript gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Thirdly, whether the applicant’s trial counsel’s failure to call evidence that was available, to the effect that the injury that brought about death was a ‘rare’ event, gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Fourthly, whether the trial judge failed to direct adequately as to the use of evidence of incriminating conduct. Finally, whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.  

Leave to appeal against conviction was refused on all grounds.

Leave to appeal against sentence was also refused, it being held that the sentence was within range for offending of this objective gravity.


NOTE:  This summary is necessarily incomplete.  It is not intended as a substitute for the Court’s reasons or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.  The only authoritative pronouncement of the Court’s reasons and conclusions is that contained in the published reasons for judgment.

Related information

Follow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook Watch us on Youtube