Nawrozi v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 272

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0251

HAFIZULLAH NAWROZI
	v
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 November 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 272

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed in respect of one charge of causing serious injury recklessly – Stab wound to the back of 13 year old boy attempting to defend his mother – Sentence not manifestly excessive – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellant	Mr T Kassimatis	Valos Black
For the respondent	Mr P B Kidd SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

I will ask Osborn JA to deliver the first judgment.

OSBORN JA:

On 7 December 2011, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of causing serious injury intentionally and one charge of causing serious injury recklessly. On 15 December 2011 he was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on the first charge and four years on the second charge. Two years of the second sentence were cumulated on the first resulting in a total effective sentence of 10 years. The sentencing judge fixed a non‑parole period of seven years. Her Honour stated that the total effective sentence she would have imposed had the applicant not pleaded guilty would have been 12 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of nine years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the basis that the sentence imposed for the second charge is manifestly excessive both in itself and with respect to the order made for cumulation.

On 2 May 2012, Maxwell P refused leave to appeal. The applicant has now elected to have his application determined by an appeal bench constituted by at least two judges.

The applicant was in a de facto relationship with Marina Maroni between 2003 and 2009. As a result of occurrences within that relationship, Ms Maroni obtained an intervention order in the Dandenong Magistrates' Court to protect herself and her two children, Alex and Alexia, from being assaulted and harassed by the applicant. The applicant breached this order repeatedly and Ms Maroni moved to an address in Preston in order to try and evade him.

After locating Ms Maroni's new address, the applicant determined to confront her on 29 August 2009. The applicant put on dark clothing with a hooded top and armed himself with a 30 cm long Annalong kitchen knife. On arriving at the

premises he hid behind wheelie bins in the driveway and waited for Ms Maroni to return home.

Ms Maroni and her two children arrived home at about 8.10 pm. The applicant attacked Ms Maroni with the knife as she was putting the key into the front door. He stabbed her in the head a number of times. One centimetre of the tip of the knife became dislodged and embedded in Ms Maroni's skull. The stabbing caused extensive head…

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 Nawrozi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Nawrozi v The Queen [2012] VSCA 272
Case: [2012] VSCA 272
Decision Date: 1 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Nawrozi v The Queen involved the appellant, who had been convicted of causing serious injury recklessly. The incident involved a 13-year-old boy who was stabbed in the back while attempting to defend his mother. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the charge. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the appeal raised a point of principle of general legal significance.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and whether the appeal raised a point of principle. The court needed to assess the gravity of the offence, the degree of culpability, and the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appeal presented a point of principle that was of general legal significance, which would warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant leave to appeal.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appeal did not raise a point of principle. The High Court reasoned that the appellant’s conduct was highly culpable, as he recklessly caused serious injury to a defenceless 13-year-old boy. However, the court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's background and the circumstances of the offence, and concluded that the sentence was appropriate. Furthermore, the court determined that the appeal did not present a point of principle of general legal significance, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the High Court's decision, the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was denied. The sentence imposed by the lower court remained in effect. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when assessing the severity of a sentence and the appropriateness of an appeal.

Orders