In 2021 NSW Police conducted a search warrant at a ‘drug house’ located in Yagoona, Sydney. The house was abandoned but was being used for the storage of a large amount of firearms and drugs. The police did not locate any person inside.
In 2023 our client was charged by police in relation to separate unrelated offences. Our client’s DNA and fingerprints were recorded. After our client’s DNA and fingerprints were uploaded to the NSW Police database, this triggered a match to various items found in the Yagoona drug house. Our client’s DNA and fingerprints were located on various key items including bags containing drugs and firearms.
Our client was then charged with the following 13 offences, and was refused bail:
2. Possess more than 3 firearms, contrary to s 51D(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
3. Possess unauthorised pistol (Smith and Wesson revolver), contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
4. Possess unauthorised pistol (Harrington & Richardson Arms revolver), contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
5. Possess unauthorised pistol (Harrington & Richardson Arms revolver), contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
6. Possess unauthorised pistol (Heckler and Koch .45 pistol), contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
7. Possess stolen firearm (Heckler and Koch .45 pistol), contrary to s 51H(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
8. Possess stolen firearm (Smith and Wesson revolver), contrary to s 51H(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
9. Possess prohibited weapon (two metal rifle magazines), contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
10. Supply small quantity of Heroin (3.86 grams), contrary to section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW);
11. Supply commercial quantity of Cocaine (1.936 kilograms) , contrary to section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW);
12. Supply commercial quantity of Methylamphetamine (243.62 grams), contrary to section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW); and
13. Supply commercial quantity of 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (131.83 grams), contrary to section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).
Our client pleaded not guilty to each charge.
In February 2025, our client elected for a judge alone trial. At trial, the Crown prosecutor argued that our client was part of a joint criminal enterprise with three other men to possess and store firearms, ammunition and prohibited drugs at the drug house. There was no evidence that our client had any connection with the property other than fingerprint and DNA evidence found on a number of items at the property. The Crown case was thus circumstantial, and the trial proceeded in large part on agreed facts with the forensic evidence linking our client to some items the subject of the charges.
The trial judge incorrectly accepted the prosecution’s argument that our client was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with only one of the co-accused to possess the drugs and guns. Following the judge-alone trial, our client was found guilty of six of the charges, and acquitted of seven. The trial judge convicted or acquitted our client of the offences having regard to the forensic evidence, that is the presence or absence of our client’s DNA or fingerprints at the property and on any of the firearms, drugs or bags holding the items.
Our client was then sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years.
In October 2025 our client appealed his conviction to the highest court in NSW, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (the CCA).
In May 2026, our Sydney criminal lawyer appeared in the CCA. In the CCA, our client argued that the verdicts of guilty returned by the trial judge were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
On 19 August 2026 three Supreme Court Justices (Cavanagh J, Rigg and Roberts JJ ), allowed the appeal, acquitting our client of all charges:
“The Yagoona property was being used to store illegal firearms and drugs. Further, it must be that the applicant had been at the premises having regard to the presence of his fingerprints on immovable items at the property.
However, possession during the charge period was an essential element of each of the offences of which the applicant was convicted. The presence of the applicant’s DNA on bags found at the Yagoona property containing the drugs or firearms or the firearms themselves was insufficient, without more, to establish that the applicant was in possession of the items (when found at the house) acting alone or in concert with the co-accused. There were other inferences available, inconsistent with the guilt of the applicant such as that the applicant had previously handled the items.
Each of the verdicts of guilty must be set aside and the applicant must be acquitted.“
For more information see:
R v Haouchar [2026] NSWCCA 124, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 19 August 2026.
