Police v Ammoun

Case [2023] ACTMC 9

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: Police v Ammoun
Citation: [2023] ACTMC 9
Hearing Date: 16 March 2023
DecisionDate: 31 March 2023
Before: Magistrate Temby
Decision:

See [222].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – discharge a firearm at a building – possession of a firearm – admissibility and consideration of victim impact statements – consideration of De Simoni principle – delusional disorder – consideration of Verdins principles – whether additional discount for assistance in administration of justice warranted
Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Police Powers and Firearms Offence) Amendment Act 2017 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33, 35, 35A, 36, 47, 49, 53, 63, 65, 70, 71
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 28B, 27(3)(d)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 27, 28, 29, 30, 93G, 198
Crimes Act 1911 (Cth) s 16A
Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 43
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 (NSW)
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:

Ah-Keni v R [2020] NSWCCA 122
Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; 226 A Crim R 354
Berichon v The Queen [2013] VSCA 319; 236 A Crim R 516
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Cassidy v R [2012] NSWCCA 68; 200 A Crim R 420
Dean v R [2020] NSWCCA 317
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 273 ALR 324
Environment Protection Authority v Wollondilly Abattoirs Pty Limited & Davis [2019] NSWCCA 312
Fagan v The Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1982] HCA 49; 150 CLR 666
Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31
Gumbinyarra v Teague [2003] NTSC 25
Haidar v R [2007] NSWCCA 95
Hector v R [2003] NSWCCA 196
Magro v R [2020] NSWCCA 25
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288
O’Brien v R [2015] ACTCA 47
R v Carpenter [2022] ACTSC 6
R v Cicekdag [2004] NSWCCA 357; 150 A Crim R 299
R v Colomer [2013] NSWDC 45
R v Dean [2020] NSWDC 11
R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317; 50 NSWLR 115
R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373
R v Hallam [2021] ACTSC 141
R v Iacuone [2014] ACTSC 149; 286 FLR 217
R v Magro [2019] NSWSC 343
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566
R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236
R v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240
The Queen v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465

Parties:

Police ( Crown)
Ali Ammoun ( Defendant)
Representation:

Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)
Legal Aid ACT ( Defendant)
File…

Continue reading Police v Ammoun

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Police v Ammoun [2023] ACTMC 9
Case
[2023] ACTMC 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Ammoun involved the defendant, who was charged with discharging a firearm at a building and possessing a firearm. The dispute centred on the admissibility and consideration of victim impact statements, the application of the De Simoni principle, and the defendant's mental health condition, specifically a delusional disorder. The court was also tasked with determining whether an additional discount for the defendant's assistance in the administration of justice was warranted, taking into account the Verdins principles.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the victim impact statements were properly admitted and considered, whether the De Simoni principle should apply to reduce the sentence, and whether the defendant's delusional disorder warranted a further discount. The court had to consider the principles in Verdins to decide if an additional discount was appropriate due to the defendant's assistance in the administration of justice.

The court found that the victim impact statements were properly admitted and considered. It held that the De Simoni principle applied, resulting in a sentence reduction. Regarding the defendant's delusional disorder, the court found that it did warrant a discount but not an additional one. The court determined that the defendant's assistance in the administration of justice did not warrant an additional discount. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account all relevant factors.

The court's final orders included the defendant's imprisonment for a specified term, with considerations for parole eligibility and other conditions as outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [222].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.