DPP v Ngyoune, Tabbit & SPA - [2007] VSC 144

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1580 of 2005

DPP

JAMIE LEE NGYOUNE, ABDUL KADER TABBIT & SPA

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 - 31 January, 1 - 2, 5 - 9, 12 - 16, 19 - 23, 26 February, 5 - 9, 13 - 16, 19 - 23 March, 11 - 13, 16 - 20, 23 - 24, 26 - 27, 30 April, 1 May 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 May 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ngyoune, Tabbit & SPA
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 144

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Affray and intentionally causing serious injury – Events of escalating seriousness – Abuse and Property damage – Assault on victim leaving victim unconscious and vulnerable – Victim in that state when killed by another - Periods in youth justice centre and prison imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman S.C. with Mr T. Walsh	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Ngyoune	Mr P. Tehan Q.C. with Mr M. Gleeson	Michael J Gleeson & Associates
For the Accused Tabbit	Mr B. Schultz	Middletons
For the Accused SPA	Mr R. Richter Q.C. with Mr J. Singh	Anthony Isaacs

HIS HONOUR:

Jamie Ngyoune, SPA and Abdul Tabbit, you have each to be sentenced for crimes arising from your role in events which took place on 13 May 2005 at Dandenong. You, Abdul Tabbit have been found guilty by a jury of one count of making an affray. That same jury found you not guilty of intentionally or recklessly causing serious injury to one Greg Harrison. You, SPA, have been found guilty by a separate jury of one count of making an affray and one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Greg Harrison. A separate jury found you not guilty of either the murder or manslaughter of Greg Harrison. You, Jamie Ngyoune have pleaded guilty to one count of making an affray and one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Greg Harrison. I must also sentence you, Jamie Ngyoune for three offences arising out of your role in events which took place on 13 January 2007 at Noble Park. As to the Noble Park events, you have pleaded guilty to one count of riotous assembly, one of burglary with intent to steal and one of theft.

Media representatives should be aware that, given the age of SPA, there are statutory provisions which impact upon the reporting of these sentencing reasons.

At different times last year, three other young males were sentenced for their crimes arising from their role in the events of 13 May 2005 at Dandenong. Clinton Gottinger was sentenced by Justice Habersberger to 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to the murder of Greg Harrison. George Pantazopoulos was sentenced by me to 3 years in a youth training centre after pleading guilty to one count of making an affray and one count of intentionally…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DPP v Ngyoune, Tabbit & SPA and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] VSC 144
Decision Date: 11 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prosecuting three defendants for their involvement in a violent affray and the intentional causing of serious injury. The incident, which unfolded in the early hours of the morning, involved escalating acts of violence and culminated in the death of the victim, who was left unconscious and vulnerable by the defendants' actions. The defendants were Ngyoune, Tabbit, and SPA, who were all charged with their respective roles in the events. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the defendants.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing for the defendants, given the severity and escalation of the violence. The court had to consider the roles of each defendant in the affray and the intentional causing of serious injury, as well as the additional acts of abuse and property damage that occurred. The court also had to weigh the fact that the victim was left unconscious and vulnerable, a state in which they were subsequently killed by another party. The court was required to determine whether the sentences should reflect the escalating seriousness of the events, the level of culpability of each defendant, and the impact of the sentences on the broader community.

The court, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the need for sentences that reflect the gravity of the offences committed by the defendants. It considered the roles of each defendant in the escalation of the violence, with particular attention given to the actions that led to the victim being left unconscious and vulnerable. The court recognised the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The sentences imposed on Ngyoune, Tabbit, and SPA reflected these considerations, with periods in youth justice centre and prison being ordered. The court determined that these sentences were appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the need to balance the various considerations involved in sentencing.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of specific periods in youth justice centre and prison on Ngyoune, Tabbit, and SPA. The exact durations of these sentences were detailed in the judgment, reflecting the court's assessment of the appropriate penalties for the defendants' roles in the affray and the intentional causing of serious injury. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the legal principles relevant to the sentencing of the defendants. The outcome of the case serves as a reminder of the importance of appropriate sentencing in cases involving serious violence and the need for the criminal justice system to uphold the rule of law and public confidence.

Orders