R v Abdallah - [2014] NSWSC 319

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Abdallah; in the matter of Matthew Edward Lewis [2014] NSWSC 319
Hearing dates: 18 March 2014
Decision date: 18 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Matthew Lewis, you are convicted of the offence of contempt in the face of the court committed on 17 February 2014 in the trial of R v Abdallah. I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of three months duration commencing on 17 February 2014 and expiring on 16 May 2014

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - contempt in the face of the court - plea of guilty - wilful refusal to answer questions
Cases Cited: Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462
Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183;
R v Abdallah (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 111
R v Razzak [2006] NSWSC 1366, 166 A Crim R 132
Category: Sentence
Parties: R v Abdallah; in the matter of Matthew Edward Lewis (Offender)
Representation: Counsel: Ms B Baker, solicitor (Amicus).
Mr B Clark (Offender).
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (Amicus)
Zahr and Zahr Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/78590

EX TEMPORE Judgment

I am sentencing Matthew Lewis for the offence of contempt in the face of the court, to which he has pleaded guilty. The terms of the charge laid by me on 17 February 2014 are that he is in contempt of the Supreme Court of New South Wales arising out of his wilful refusal to answer questions asked of him in the trial of R v Abdallah when required to do so. On that day I remanded him in custody, where he has remained ever since.

The circumstances giving rise to the charge are fully set out in the written submissions I have received from Ms Baker, solicitor advocate employed in the Office of the Crown Solicitor, who has been appointed amicus curiae by the Attorney General. I am grateful for the Attorney providing her advocacy.

Mr Clark of counsel ably represents Mr Lewis.

As the written submissions point out, where the contemnor is charged by the trial judge the matter may proceed without the involvement of a prosecutor. In such circumstances it may be necessary for counsel to appear as amicus to assist the judge by making appropriate submissions. This is the case in these proceedings.

The facts are not in dispute, and in reciting them I rely heavily upon the submissions provided by Ms Baker. The Crown alleged that Mr Abdallah shot Neal Todorovski a number of times with a handgun at about midday on 4 January 2012 in a residential street in Sans Souci. There was also a second charge of attempted murder of Mr John Leger, which occurred as part of the same continuum of fact giving rise to the murder charge. I sentenced Mr Leger for contempt…

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 R v Abdallah

Details

AGLC: R v Abdallah; in the matter of Matthew Edward Lewis [2014] NSWSC 319
Case: [2014] NSWSC 319
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Abdallah involved the defendant, Abdallah, who stood before the court on a charge of contempt in the face of the court. The dispute centred around Abdallah's refusal to answer questions during his trial, leading to the court's consideration of an appropriate sentence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues for the court to address were the nature and scope of contempt in the face of the court and the appropriate sentence for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to this offence. The court needed to balance the defendant's right to silence with the need to maintain the integrity and authority of the court. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the refusal to answer questions constituted a wilful contempt and the severity of the sentence commensurate with the offence.

In its reasoning, the court examined the principle that courts must maintain their authority and ensure that proceedings are conducted with dignity and respect. The court acknowledged that a defendant's right to silence is a fundamental aspect of the legal process. However, it found that Abdallah's refusal to answer questions was wilful and intended to obstruct the court's proceedings. The court determined that the offence warranted a sentence that both reflected the seriousness of the contempt and served as a deterrent to similar conduct in the future. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that balanced these considerations, taking into account the defendant's guilty plea and the need for the sentence to uphold the court's authority.

The court ordered that Abdallah be sentenced to imprisonment for a specified period, reflecting the gravity of the contempt in the face of the court and the need to deter future occurrences of such conduct.

Orders