Legal Research
Cases
Ibrahim v Regina

Ibrahim v Regina

Case [2009] NSWCCA 15 13 February 2009

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Ibrahim v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 15

HEARING DATE(S): 5/2/09

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Blanch J at 2; Kirby J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, but the appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentence appeal - manslaughter - extended joint criminal enterprise - whether inference of planning open - whether sentence manifestly excessive.

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

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Ibrahim [2008] NSWSC 268
R v Hung Duc Dang [2001] NSWCCA 321
R v Cardoso [001] NSWSC 775
R v Nicholas Hampton [2004] NSWSC 1215
R v Walsh, R v Sharp [2004] NSWSC 111; (2004) 142 A Crim R 140
R v Diab [2007] NSWSC 577
R v Taiseni, Motuapuaka, Leota, Tuifua [2007] NSWSC 1090
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377; (2005) 160 A Crim R 1
Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
Taber & Styman v R [2007] NSWCCA 116; (2007) 170 A Crim R 427

PARTIES: Michael Ibrahim (Appl)
Regina (Resp/Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/4050

COUNSEL: P Boulten SC (Appl)
D Frearson SC (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS: Alexanders Lawyers (Appl)
S Kavanagh (Resp/Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/2811

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Price J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 21/4/08

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2008] NSWSC 268

2006/4050

GROVE J
BLANCH J
KIRBY J
Friday 13 February 2009

Michael IBRAHIM v REGINA

Judgment

1 GROVE J: I agree with Kirby J.

2 BLANCH J: I agree with Kirby J.

3 KIRBY J: On 8 October 2007, Michael Ibrahim (the applicant) pleaded guilty to having, on 2 January 2006, unlawfully killed Robin Nassour (manslaughter s 18(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900: maximum penalty 25 years imprisonment). On 21 April 2008, Price J sentenced Mr Ibrahim to imprisonment with a non parole period of 6 years and 6 months (16.9.06 to 15.3.13), with a balance of term of 2 years and 10 months (16.3.13 to 15.1.16), an aggregate term of 9 years and 4 months (R v Ibrahim [2008] NSWSC 268). Mr Ibrahim seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

4 I will shortly set out the grounds of appeal. They involve a challenge to a factual finding made by the sentencing Judge and an assertion that the sentence imposed was excessive. However, I should first describe the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

The incident.

5 It was the Crown case that four persons, including Mr Ibrahim, were responsible for the death of Robin Nassour. The original indictment charged murder, with a second count of wounding the deceased’s brother, George Nassour. Two of the others charged, “KR” and “PR”, were Mr Ibrahim’s cousins. The fourth man, Faouzi Abou-Jibal, died some time after the incident for reasons unconnected with the incident.

6 The matter proceeded before his Honour upon the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Mr Ibrahim did not give…

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 Ibrahim v Regina

Details

AGLC: Ibrahim v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 13 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ibrahim v Regina involved the appellant, who had been found guilty of manslaughter in the context of an extended joint criminal enterprise. The appellant sought to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in making certain findings and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues central to the appeal centred around the trial judge's ability to draw inferences regarding the appellant's involvement in the planning of the crime and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. Specifically, the appellant challenged the trial judge's finding that there was sufficient evidence to infer he had participated in planning the crime and argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant's arguments were based on the premise that the trial judge's findings and the sentence imposed did not adequately account for the nuances of his role within the extended joint criminal enterprise.

In addressing the appeal, the court considered whether the trial judge had erred in making certain findings about the appellant's involvement in the planning of the crime. The court examined the evidence presented and the inferences drawn by the trial judge, ultimately finding no error in the trial judge's approach. The court also reviewed the sentence imposed, taking into account the appellant's role and the principles of sentencing in cases involving extended joint criminal enterprises. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The court's decision underscored the importance of the trial judge's role in assessing the evidence and making findings about the appellant's involvement in the planning of the crime, as well as the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The court's ruling reinforced the principles governing sentencing in cases involving extended joint criminal enterprises and the scope of appellate review in such matters.

Orders