Legal Research
Cases
Majzoub v R

Majzoub v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 94 8 May 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Majzoub v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 94
Hearing dates: 29 March 2019
Date of orders: 08 May 2019
Decision date: 08 May 2019
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Garling J at [2]
Hidden AJ at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - aggregate sentence - domestic violence offences, offences of threatening or attempting to influence complainant not to give evidence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - complaints of length of non-parole period, extent of notional accumulation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
Pannowitz v R [2016] NSWCCA 13
Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mohamad Majzoub (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant in person
Regina (B Hatfield)
Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
Regina (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2013/345695
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

12 August 2016

Before:

Norton DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/345695

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Hidden AJ and the reasons which he gives.
GARLING J: I agree with the orders proposed, for the reasons given, by Hidden AJ.
HIDDEN AJ: On 21 May 2015, the applicant, Mohamad Majzoub, was arraigned in the District Court on an indictment containing, in all, seventeen counts. The counts were numbered 1 to 15, but the counts numbered 4 and 9 were split into two alternative counts (expressed as 4a and 4b, and 9a and 9b). The charges arose from, or were related to, what was alleged to be a sustained course of violence inflicted by the applicant upon a woman with whom he was in a relationship. Counts 1 to 11 charged various offences of violence and of detaining for advantage committed over a period between October 2011 and November 2013. The applicant was arrested in respect of those charges on 15 November 2013. Counts 12 to 15 alleged that between December 2013 and March 2014 he attempted to influence the complainant not to give evidence against him.
On his arraignment the applicant pleaded guilty to counts 3, 12 and 15 (common assault, and attempts to influence the complainant not to give evidence made directly by him and through one of his sisters). On 7 March 2016, the first day of the trial of the remaining counts, he also pleaded guilty to counts 13 and 14 (attempts to influence the complainant not to give evidence through his brother and another sister). He was found guilty of counts 4b, 5, 6, 9a, 10 and 11. He was found not guilty of count 8 and the jury…

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 Majzoub v R

Details

AGLC: Majzoub v R [2019] NSWCCA 94
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 94
Decision Date: 08 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the appellant, Majzoub, was convicted of multiple criminal offences including domestic violence, and threatening or attempting to influence a complainant not to give evidence. The case presented an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court, specifically challenging the aggregate sentence. Majzoub contended that the aggregate sentence, which included a significant non-parole period, was manifestly excessive and that the notional accumulation of the sentences was unjust.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity and nature of the offences, and the principles of sentencing in Australia. The court had to consider whether the aggregate sentence, which included a lengthy non-parole period, was appropriate and whether the notional accumulation of the sentences for each offence was justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The court found that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the lower court had appropriately considered the cumulative effect of the offences and the need to protect the community. The notional accumulation of the sentences was deemed reasonable given the nature and circumstances of the crimes. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Orders