Legal Research
Cases
Hello v R

Hello v R

Case [2010] NSWCCA 311 15 December 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Hello v R; El-Skaf v R; Bakkour v R; Hosainy v R [2010] NSWCCA 311
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 20 September 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J at 1; Rothman J at 62; Price J at 68

DECISION: HELLO - (Applicant 1)
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal allowed
3. Quash the sentence imposed on 24 November 2009 and in lieu, a non parole period of 2 years is imposed, to date from 17 November 2009, expiring 16 November 2011, with a balance of term of 17 months, expiring 16 April 2013. The applicant is eligible for release on 17 November 2011.
EL-SKAF - (Applicant 2)
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed
BAKKOUR - (Applicant 3)
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal dismissed
HOSAINY - (Applicant 4)
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeals against sentence - pleas of guilty to one count of knowingly facilitate car rebirthing activity on an organised basis, pursuant to s 154G(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 - whether Judge erred in assessment of objective gravity of offences - whether disparity of sentence between co-offenders - whether Judge failed to take into account one offender's onerous bail conditions - whether sentences manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1996
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Bilal Bakkour ; R v Nasis Javelosa [2009] NSWDC 405
R v Bilal Bakkour ; R v Nasis Javelosa [2009] NSWDC 405
R v Hamieh [2010] NSWCCA 189
R v Najem [2008] NSWCCA 32
Thalari v R [2009] NSWCCA 170
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357

PARTIES: Mohamad HELLO - (Applicant 1)
Hussein EL-SKAF - (Applicant 2)
Bilal BAKKOUR - (Applicant 3)
Nasir HOSAINY (aka JAVELOSA) - (Applicant 4)
Regina - Crown Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/16857; 2008/15722; 2008/16322; 2008/17822

COUNSEL: A Martin - (Applicant 1)
R Jankowski - (Applicant 2)
H Dhanji - (Applicant 3)
H Cox - (Applicant 4)
J. Girdham - Crown Respondent

SOLICITORS: N. Velcic - (Applicant 1)
Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers - (Applicant 2)
John Dooland - (Applicant 3)
Brett Galloway - (Applicant 4)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/16857; 2008/15722; 2008/16322; 2008/17822

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Cogswell SC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 24 November 2009

2008/16857
2008/15722
2008/16322
2008/17822

LATHAM J
ROTHMAN J
PRICE J
15 DECEMBER 2010

MOHAMAD HELLO v R

HUSSEIN EL-SKAF v R

BILAL BAKKOUR v R

NASIR HOSAINY (aka JAVELOSA) v R

Judgment

1 LATHAM J : The applicants each pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly facilitate car rebirthing activity on an organised basis, pursuant to s 154G(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years…

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 Hello v R

Details

AGLC: Hello v R [2010] NSWCCA 311
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 311
Decision Date: 15 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hello v R, the appellant was found guilty of knowingly facilitating a car rebirthing activity on an organised basis. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, along with a co-offender, pleaded guilty to charges under section 154G(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The primary issue before the Court was whether the trial Judge erred in the assessment of the objective gravity of the offences, whether there was a disparity of sentence between the co-offenders, whether the Judge failed to take into account the onerous bail conditions imposed on the appellant, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the trial Judge's assessment of the objective gravity of the offences, considering the nature and circumstances of the activities involved. The Court also reviewed the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and the co-offender, evaluating whether this was justified and whether the Judge had properly considered the appellant's bail conditions. Additionally, the Court scrutinised whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors.

The Court found that the trial Judge did not err in the assessment of the objective gravity of the offences, and the disparity in sentencing was justified. The Court concluded that the Judge had considered the appellant's bail conditions and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders