AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 August 2026

Haouchar v R

[2026] NSWCCA 124

DrugsFirearms & weaponsPublic order & justice offences

Citation: Haouchar v R [2026] NSWCCA 124
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW
Date: 19 August 2026
Judge(s): Cavanagh J (leading judgment); Rigg J and Roberts J (agreeing)

Background

The applicant stood trial in the District Court on 13 counts relating to the possession of firearms, prohibited weapons, and prohibited drugs, as well as one count of knowingly participating in a criminal group. The charges arose from items found at an unoccupied house in Yagoona when police executed a search warrant. The applicant had no registered connection to the property, and the Crown's case rested substantially on forensic evidence, namely fingerprints and DNA linking him to some of the seized items.

The Crown contended that the applicant was part of a joint criminal enterprise with three other men to possess and store the firearms, ammunition, and drugs at the property. Following a judge-alone trial, the trial judge convicted the applicant of six counts, comprising four possession of firearms offences and two drug supply offences, and acquitted him of the remaining seven. The trial judge's verdicts turned on whether the applicant's fingerprints or DNA were present on particular items.

The applicant had already pleaded guilty to a separate set of offences. An aggregate sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years was imposed across all matters. The applicant appealed against the six convictions only, not the sentence.

  • Whether the six guilty verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence (Ground 2, the principal ground)
  • Whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the seven acquittals (Ground 1)
  • Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for the apparent inconsistency between verdicts and for rejecting explanations of how the applicant's DNA came to be on items (Ground 3)
  • Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for finding a joint criminal enterprise existed between the applicant and one co-accused during the relevant charge period (Ground 4)

Decision

Ground 2 (Unreasonable verdicts): The Court restated the established appellate standard: the appellate court must make its own independent assessment of the whole of the evidence and determine whether it was open to the tribunal of fact to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. In a circumstantial case, a guilty verdict cannot stand unless guilt is the only rational inference available from the proven circumstances.

The Court confirmed that possession, as an element of each offence, requires both physical control or custody of an item to the exclusion of others and knowledge of that custody or control. Joint possession requires two or more persons acting in concert to exercise exclusive possession against all outsiders.

Cavanagh J found that, while the applicant must have been at the Yagoona property at some point given his fingerprints were on immovable items there, the presence of his DNA on bags or firearms at the property was insufficient on its own to establish that he possessed those items during the charge period. A competing inference was reasonably available: that the applicant had previously handled the items, without possessing them at the time they were found. Because guilt was not the only rational inference, each guilty verdict could not stand.

Rigg J and Roberts J each independently assessed the evidence and reached the same conclusion. Roberts J noted that, while one rational inference from the circumstances was that the applicant jointly possessed the items, it was not the only rational inference, and a reasonable doubt therefore arose.

Grounds 1, 3, and 4: The Court allowed the appeal on Ground 2 in respect of all six convictions and did not need to determine the remaining grounds. Cavanagh J observed that much of the reasoning on Ground 2 would in any event bear on the inconsistent verdicts ground raised in Ground 1.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed
  • Convictions on counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 quashed; orders of acquittal entered on each count
  • Aggregate sentence imposed on 17 October 2025 set aside
  • Matter remitted to the District Court for further sentencing on the offences to which the applicant had pleaded guilty
  • Matter listed for mention at Sydney District Court on 28 August 2026

Key Takeaways

  • In a circumstantial case, a guilty verdict requires that guilt be the only rational inference available from the whole of the evidence; the existence of a competing reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is sufficient to produce a reasonable doubt.
  • Possession of drugs or firearms requires both physical control or custody to the exclusion of others and knowledge of that custody or control; DNA or fingerprint evidence connecting an accused to seized items does not automatically establish possession at the time the items were found.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the appellate standard for unreasonable verdict appeals applies in the same way whether the trial was conducted before a jury or a judge alone.
  • An accused bears no evidentiary onus to establish a hypothesis consistent with innocence; the Crown must eliminate all rational hypotheses other than guilt before a circumstantial conviction can be sustained.
  • Where an aggregate sentence encompasses both appealed convictions and matters to which an accused pleaded guilty, quashing the convictions on appeal requires the sentencing exercise to be remitted to the original court rather than resolved on appeal.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 93T
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) , ss 5, 6
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) , s 25
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) , ss 4, 4A, 7, 51D, 51H
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 7, Sch 1 s 4

Cases
- Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179
- Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
- English v R [2025] NSWCCA 184
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
- Halmi v R [2008] NSWCCA 259
- He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; [1985] HCA 43
- Hyunh v R [2020] NSWCCA 202
- Lee v R [2013] NSWCCA 68; (2013) 232 A Crim R 337
- Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455; [2014] HCA 20
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
- Musa v R [2019] NSWCCA 279
- Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
- R v Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64
- R v Filippetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335
- R v Haouchar [2025] NSWDC 47
- R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400; (2001) 125 A Crim R 89
- Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
- Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117 ; (2023) 308 A Crim R 196
- The King v ZT (2025) 281 CLR 137; [2025] HCA 9
- The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
- Wiggins v R [2020] NSWCCA 256