Jo Renjiro v. Riad Mahrez

[Klaus]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The Argonath Administrative Tribunal Committee Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "Jo Renjiro v. Riad Mahrez" Proceeding Number: VC-CIVIL0002/2019

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jo Renjiro v. Riad Mahrez [2019] AFC 33
Date of Decision:	30 August 2020
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Sir Klaus
Catchwords:	CIVIL LITIGATION - Conclusion judgement - Contract law. CONTRACT LITIGATION - Defendant charged with Breach of Contact. CRIMINAL LAW - Defendant charged with Assault / Attempted Murder
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	None.
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	Mr Jo Renjiro (Prosecution) Mr Riad Mahrez (Defendant)
Representation:	Legal Representatives/Counsel: Mr Ghayed Hamzah (Prosecutor) Mr R Mahrez (Defence)

JUDGEMENT

[1].        On the 6th of August 2019, Mr Riad Mahrez (the ‘Defendant’) and Mr Jo Renjiro (the 'Plaintiff') submitted a written agreement to the Court of Vice City. The Contract was a signed legal agreement on the sale of a Maverick model helicopter for $180,000, and involved three sets of instructions for both parties. These instructions are as follows: Both parties will sign this contract in court, Riad will wire $180,000 to Jo Renjiro, Jo Renjiro will hand over his keys to Maverick VC-C876 to Riad. This Contract was submitted as Exhibit A by the Prosecution.

[2].        Shortly after the plaintiff filed a civil complaint and summons in this Court alleging that the defendant, Mr Mahrez was in breach of said contract, as well as claiming  that the defendant had attempted to murder Mr Renjiro. There are various issues to address in this case, firstly that is whether the evidence submitted is valid, secondly whether the defendant should be liable for Breach of Contract, and thirdly whether the claims have any basis in law.

[3].        The defendant entered into a plea of not guilty, implicating that the charges are in fact false and that the case should be dropped immediately. Mr Riad Mahrez questioned the evidence put fourth by the Prosecution and demanded further evidence of Mr Riad Mahez's involvement in the case to be submitted.

Defence Submissions

[4].        The defence submits in primary three grounds, one of his involvement in the case is questionable, two that the evidence submitted is false, and three that the Plaintiff took photographs of Mr Mahrez without his knowing or consent.

Ground One: Mr Riad Mahrez's involvement:

[5].        The defence submitted: ‘I want evidence of my involvement in this case’.

[6].        We believe Exhibit A is enough evidence to prove that Mr Riad Mahrez entered into a legal agreement with Mr Jo Renjiro. Mr Riad Mahrez signed the contract: I hereby agree with and sign the above contract, riad mahrez.

Ground Two: False evidence:

[7].        The defence stated the following: "These charges are all false. Please close this case".

[8].        We believe Exhibit B to be valid evidence of the sale of Maverick VC C-876.

Ground Three: Taking of photographs without consent:

[9].        There is no law that states the taking of a photograph in a public place requires the consent of those in the photo. Therefore we find this evidence admissible.


Sentencing

[10].      In addressing sentencing, the defendant is found to be in breach of contract Sale of a Maverick helicopter. As the defendant has since changed his plea to guilty, he is entitled to a 20% discount in monetary penalty. I find no alternative to conviction and subsequently convict the defendant based on the evidence provided.

[11].         I accordingly penalise the defendant $50,000 ARD, taking into account the demands of the prosecution and court fees.

[12].         The prosecution wished to adduce the evidence in Exhibit C to prove that the defendant had attempted murder. I find that the evidence submitted not concrete evidence that connects the defendant to such crime.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Judge Sir Klaus.

Registrar

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the defendant is to be convicted of the crimes for which he plead guilty to.

[2].        That the defendant must transfer the Maverick VC C-876 back to it's rightful owner Mr Jo Renjiro, or pay it's face value of $200,000.

[3].        That the defendant be issued a monetary penalty of $40,000 ARD, to be stripped from the defendant's bank accounts and/or if the defendant cannot pay the sum, for the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover such fine.

[4].        That the defendant be found not guilty of attempted murder under by the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017.

ORDERED, on this 30th day of August, 2020.

Signed,

Klaus
Sir Klaus
AAT Committee member

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court found that Riad Mahrez was in breach of contract, and has been forced to carry out said contract. Riad Mahrez will also be given a monetary fine based on the prosecutions demands and court fees. Riad Mahrez was also found not guilty for attempted murder.
 

• This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.

~Distributed by authority of the Courts of Argonath~