Legal Research
Cases
Karam v The King

Karam v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 194 22 August 2025

Rehabilitation in Custody

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0062

JOE KARAM	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 194
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 127 (Judge Mullaly)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Conduct endangering persons – Causing injury intentionally – Racist motivation – First victim of African appearance – Applicant shouted racist abuse at first victim – Endangered first victim by driving vehicle towards him – Second victim of Indian appearance – Applicant used vehicle to run over second victim – Judge found racist motivation underlying offending against both victims – Applicant submitting in respect of second victim finding not open – Whether finding open – Close temporal proximity between offences – Open to view offences as part of single larger transaction – No error in judge’s finding – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Remorse – Letter of applicant expressing sorrow and claiming racism produced by drug-induced psychosis – Letter of friends of applicant attesting to applicant’s good character – Judge not dealing in terms with remorse – Whether judge erred by not having regard to remorse – Psychiatrist’s report showing applicant downplayed responsibility for offending – Judge referred to friends’ letter – Judge addressed remorse – Mere failure to refer to sentencing consideration not establishing failure to take into account – No error in judge’s approach – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Manifest excess – Guilty plea – Evidence of rehabilitation in custody – Applicant having spent about two years in custody before plea – No discount available for pre-sentence detention – Applicant serving terms of imprisonment for two unrelated sentences – Whether total effective sentence 6 years 3 months’ imprisonment and non-parole period 4 years 9 months for conduct endangering persons and causing injury intentionally manifestly excessive – Very serious examples of offending – Limited mitigating factors – Moderate orders for cumulation – Judge had regard to totality – No error in judge’s approach – Leave to appeal refused.

Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(2)(daaa); Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 209.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr N Papas KC with Ms J Poole
Respondent:		Ms K Hamill
Solicitors
Applicant:	Marshall Jovanovska Ralph Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
MCLEISH JA:

On 5 October 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft of a motor vehicle, two charges of conduct endangering persons and one charge of intentionally causing injury. On 19 February 2024 he pleaded guilty to charges of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident and possession of a drug of dependence. Later that day he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment M12470833A
1	Theft[1]	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year imprisonment	1 month
2	Conduct endangering persons[2]	5 years’ imprisonment	1…

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 Karam v The King

Details

AGLC: Karam v The King [2025] VSCA 194
Case: [2025] VSCA 194
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Karam v The King, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to charges of endangering the lives of two individuals through racist attacks, sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant had driven his vehicle towards a man of African appearance and subsequently used it to run over another man of Indian appearance. The trial judge found that the applicant's actions were motivated by racism and sentenced him to imprisonment terms. The applicant contested the judge's findings on the racist motivation, the consideration of his remorse, and the excessiveness of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the trial judge erred in finding that the applicant's actions against both victims were part of a single racist attack, whether the judge adequately considered the applicant's remorse, and if the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the temporal proximity of the offences did not justify treating them as a single transaction and that the judge should have taken into account his expressions of remorse and the psychiatric evidence. The prosecution maintained that the trial judge's approach was correct and that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offending.

The court found that the trial judge's determination that the offences constituted a single larger transaction was open to view, given the close temporal proximity and the racist motivation behind both attacks. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in his consideration of the applicant's remorse, as he had referred to the psychiatric report and the letter attesting to the applicant's good character. Lastly, the court concluded that the judge had correctly considered the totality of the circumstances, including the serious nature of the offending and the limited mitigating factors, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court ultimately refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings and sentence.

Orders