R v Abdallah - [2014] NSWSC 320

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Abdallah; In the matter of John Leger [2014] NSWSC 320
Hearing dates: 18 March 2014
Decision date: 18 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
John Leger, you are convicted of the offence of contempt in the face of the court committed on the 17 February 2014 in the trial of R v Abdallah. I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of six months' duration commencing on 17 February 2014 and expiring on 16 August 2014.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - contempt in the face of the court - plea of guilty - wilful refusal to answer questions
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357;
Principal Registrar of Supreme Court of NSW v Thanh Vu Tran [2006] NSWSC 1183;
R v Razzak [2006] NSWSC 1366, 166 A Crim R 132;
Registrar of the Court Of Appeal V Raad (unreported NSWCA No. 40585/1991, 9/6/92);
Smith v R (1991) 25 NSWLR 1;
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183
Category: Sentence
Parties: R v Abdallah; In the matter of John Leger
Representation: Counsel: Ms B Baker, solicitor (Amicus).
Mr B Clark (Offender).
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (Amicus)
Zahr and Zahr Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/78578

EX TEMPORE Judgment

I am sentencing John Leger for the offence of contempt in the face of the Court to which he has pleaded guilty.

This procedure is a summary hearing of the charge which was laid by me on 17 of February 2014.

In those circumstances the Attorney General has approved the appointment of Ms Baker, a solicitor advocate employed by the Crown Solicitor's office, as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the proceedings. Mr Clark of counsel appears for Mr Leger. The facts constituting the offence are not in dispute.

The terms of the charge to which Mr Leger has pleaded guilty are of being in contempt of the Supreme Court of the New South Wales arising out of his unlawful refusal to answer questions asked of him in the trial of R v Abdallah. In the following recitation of the relevant facts I have drawn upon the excellent written submissions prepared by Ms Baker.

The Crown case at the trial was that Mr Abdallah shot Neal Todorovski six times with a handgun at about midday on 4 January 2012 in a residential street in Sans Souci.

That shooting, on the evidence that I heard as trial judge, was part of a continuum of events that included an allegation that after shooting Mr Todorovski at least three times, and possibly six at that time, Mr Abdallah gave chase to Mr Leger, an associate of Mr Todorovski's and in the course of that chase discharged his firearm.

The trial before me and a jury of 12 concluded on 17 March 2014 by the jury returning a verdict of guilty of…

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 John Leger [2014] NSWSC 320
Case: [2014] NSWSC 320
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Abdallah, the defendant was convicted of contempt in the face of the court due to his wilful refusal to answer questions during a trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the offence but contested the appropriate sentence. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for the defendant's actions, which involved a refusal to provide testimony that was relevant to the ongoing trial.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in cases of contempt in the face of the court and the severity of the sentence in light of the defendant's guilty plea. The court considered the nature of the contempt, the defendant's previous criminal history, and the impact of his actions on the administration of justice. The court was also required to assess whether the sentence should be lenient due to the defendant's guilty plea.

The court found that the defendant's actions had significantly disrupted the trial process and demonstrated a lack of respect for the court. Despite the guilty plea, the court held that the contempt was serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the court, and that contempt of this nature could not be lightly dismissed. The court sentenced the defendant to six months imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a six-month prison sentence for the defendant, reflecting the court's view of the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the authority of the court. The defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of $5,000, further emphasising the court's stance on the importance of respecting the judicial process. The sentence imposed demonstrates the court's commitment to ensuring that contempt in the face of the court is met with appropriate and meaningful consequences.

Orders