Legal Research
Cases
Hamid v The Queen

Hamid v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 5 30 January 2019

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Recklessly causing serious injury

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0102

SHAHID HAMID	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 January 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 January 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 5
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VCC 644 (Judge Hampel)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Recklessly causing serious injury – Whether sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 years manifestly excessive – Applicant ambushed victim and struck him repeatedly to the head and neck with bladed knuckleduster causing life-threatening injuries and permanent scarring – Prior offences of intentionally causing serious injury using a knife and affray – Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Kassimatis QC with Ms B Franjic	Balmer & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA
KYROU JA:

Introduction and summary

On 3 May 2018, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.[1] The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.[2] The judge made a declaration under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that, if not for the applicant’s plea of guilty, she would have sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
[1]DPP v Hamid [2018] VCC 644 (‘Sentencing remarks’).
[2]Crimes Act 1958 s 17.

The offending occurred when the applicant ambushed the victim, Rollin Shah, outside a house at which the victim, but not the applicant, was a guest at a private party and attacked him with a knuckleduster that had a blade attached to it. Shah suffered a deep, life-threatening laceration to his neck.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that the head sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.

For the reasons that follow, the application for leave to appeal against sentence will be granted but the appeal will be dismissed.

Circumstances of the offending

The applicant was born and educated in Malaysia. He and Shah attended the same school. In about 2006, Shah began a relationship with the applicant’s sister. The relationship was often a long distance one, as Shah had attended university in Australia, between 2005 and 2010. Shah ended the relationship in August 2016. In 2017, he was living in Indonesia.

On 28 January 2017, Shah flew to Melbourne and visited the home of his friend, Joey Ho. During that visit, he met Michael Pavlidis, who was a friend of the applicant. Shah briefly visited New Zealand before returning to Melbourne on 8 February 2017 and again stayed at Ho’s house. Pavlidis learned that Shah had returned to Melbourne.

Also on 8 February 2017, the applicant sent a message to his friend, Ahmed Said and told him that he had learned that Shah was…

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 Hamid v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hamid v The Queen [2019] VSCA 5
Case: [2019] VSCA 5
Decision Date: 30 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hamid v The Queen, the applicant, Mr Hamid, appealed against his sentence for recklessly causing serious injury. The incident involved the applicant ambushing the victim and striking him repeatedly to the head and neck with a bladed knuckleduster, resulting in life-threatening injuries and permanent scarring. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years, was manifestly excessive. This assessment required consideration of the severity of the crime, the applicant's prior criminal history, and the principles of sentencing.

The court examined the gravity of the offence, noting the violent and premeditated nature of the attack which caused severe and permanent harm to the victim. It also considered the applicant's previous convictions for intentionally causing serious injury with a knife and affray, highlighting a pattern of violent behaviour. In evaluating whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court weighed these factors against the sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature and consequences of the crime and the applicant's criminal history.

The appeal was dismissed by the court, which held that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community. The decision underscored the importance of considering both the immediate harm caused and the broader context of the offender's criminal conduct. The final orders confirmed the sentence as appropriate, reflecting the court's view that the sentence was neither excessive nor inadequate in the circumstances.

Orders