Legal Research
Cases
Hallak v R

Hallak v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 48 11 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Hallak v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 48

Hearing Date(s): 4 April 2014

Decision Date: 11 April 2014

Before: RA Hulme J at [1]
Davies J at [2]
Adamson J at [28]

Decision:
Leave to appeal refused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - robbery in company - discount for guilty plea - plea entered on morning of trial - discount of 5% given - whether such a discount was an error - co-offender accorded 10% for plea 10 days earlier - no error demonstrated

Cases Cited: Krotiris v R [2012] NSWCCA 28
R v Araya [2005] NSWCCA 283
R v Johnstone [2004] NSWCCA 307
R v Newman [2004] NSWCCA 113
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 286
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Sullivan v R; Skillin v R [2008] NSWCCA 296
Tunivono v R [2013] NSWCCA 176

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Mohammad Hallak (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
M Johnston (Applicant)
H Wilson SC (Crown)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/41607

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Colefax DCJ

- Date of Decision: 14 June 2013

- Court File Number(s): 2012/41607

JUDGMENT

R A HULME J: I agree with Davies J.
DAVIES J: The Applicant was charged with having committed a robbery in company on 19 December 2011. He pleaded guilty on the morning the trial was due to start. The co-offender had pleaded guilty ten days earlier.
The Applicant and the co-offender (who are brothers) were sentenced by Judge Colefax SC on 14 June 2013. The Applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of three years and two months with an additional term of one year and one month. In fixing that sentence his Honour gave a discount of 5% in respect of the plea.
The Applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court on one ground only:
Ground 1: The sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the discount to be afforded to the applicant for the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty.
It is clear from the Applicant's submissions that the discount that he says he ought to have been accorded was one of 10%.
It is only necessary to mention the facts briefly.
A little after 8pm on 19 December 2011 the victim, Ms Miao, a 30 year old woman, boarded a train at Cabramatta railway station to travel to Carramar. The Applicant and his brother boarded the same carriage of the train. The victim alighted at Carramar, as did the Applicant and his brother. The Applicant and his brother followed Ms Miao.
When she arrived at a pedestrian footbridge crossing Prospect Creek the Applicant grabbed her handbag. He took hold of her left arm in the bicep area and grabbed it with such force that she felt pain. The victim did not let go of her grip on her handbag. The Applicant's brother then put his hand around the…

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.

Continue reading Hallak v R

Details

AGLC: Hallak v R [2014] NSWCCA 48
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 48
Decision Date: 11 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hallak v R involved the appellant, who was convicted of committing robbery in company. The dispute centred on the sentencing discount the appellant received for entering a guilty plea. The plea was entered on the morning of the trial, and the appellant was granted a 5% discount on his sentence. The co-offender, who pleaded guilty 10 days prior, received a 10% discount. The appellant argued that the lower discount was an error, given the timing of the pleas. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentencing discount granted to the appellant was appropriate. The court had to consider the timing of the guilty plea and whether the 5% discount was erroneous, particularly when compared to the 10% discount given to the co-offender. The court also had to examine whether there was any demonstrated error in the sentencing process that would warrant a different outcome.

The court concluded that there was no demonstrated error in the sentencing discount granted to the appellant. The court recognised that the timing of the guilty plea could influence the discount but held that the difference in the discount between the appellant and the co-offender did not constitute an error. The court reasoned that the sentencing judge had the discretion to determine the appropriate discount, and the difference in timing was a factor to consider but not necessarily determinative. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentencing decision.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the sentence imposed on the appellant by the lower court. The court held that the sentencing discount was within the appropriate range and no demonstrated error had occurred. The decision emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to consider all relevant factors in determining an appropriate discount for a guilty plea.

Orders