R v Abdulhadi - [2012] NSWSC 1658

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Abdulhadi [2012] NSWSC 1658
Hearing dates: 27 February, 23 March, 2nd April, 2012
Decision date: 20 April 2012
Before: Latham J
Decision:
Sentenced to 3 years and 7 months, commencing 25 October 2010, expiring 24 May 2014. I fix a non parole period of 2 years, expiring 24 October 2012. The offender is eligible for release on 25 October 2012.

Catchwords: SENTENCE - guilty plea - affray - 10% discount for guilty plea at late stage - high level of objective gravity - significant level of general deterrence - no expression of remorse - offender's criminal history not a significant factor - finding of special circumstances based on offender's medical and psychological issues
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v Barghachoun [2011] NSWSC 1534
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina - (Crown)
Rami Abdulhadi - (Offender)
Representation: Counsel
P Barrett - (Crown)
P Little - (Offender)
Solicitors
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Crown)
Grays Legal - (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/19163 2010/98091

Judgment

The offender, Rami Abdulhadi, pleaded guilty on 27 February 2012 to one count of affray contrary to s 93C of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The plea was entered two weeks after the empanelment of a jury in relation to a charge of murder then preferred against the offender. Following legal argument and the withdrawal of evidence upon which the Crown relied in relation to the murder charge, the offender acknowledged his guilt of the alternative count and it was accepted in full discharge of the indictment.

In these circumstances, a discount of 10% is warranted for the offender's plea. The utilitarian value of the plea is, in my view, very low, given that the Crown had undertaken all of the preparation necessary to put the offender on trial. It matters not that there was no offer from the Crown to accept such a plea in discharge of the indictment before the withdrawal of the critical evidence ; it was always open to the offender to admit his guilt of the affray charge.

The agreed statement of facts are Exhibit A in these proceedings. They record that on 25 June 2009, Hamden Elkobaili was involved in a physical assault with Samir Mohamad at Bankstown's Centro shopping centre. Adam Mariam was also present. The assault was interrupted by security staff and by police. Both groups were escorted from the premises. Hamden Elkobaili was said to be the instigator of the conflict and was heard to refer to Samir Mohamad as a "dog".

Over the following hours, numerous telephone calls were made between associates and family members of the two opposing camps, namely the Elkobaili group and the Mariam group, as well as between members belonging to each group. During these telephone calls, arrangements were made to meet in order to pursue the earlier conflict. During these calls both the Mariam group and the Elkobaili group recruited other people to participate…

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 Abdulhadi

Details

AGLC: R v Abdulhadi [2012] NSWSC 1658
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1658
Decision Date: 20 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Abdulhadi involved the offender who was charged with affray. The offender pleaded guilty at a late stage, which resulted in a 10% discount to the sentence. The offender's criminal history was not considered a significant factor in the sentencing decision. The offender did not express any remorse for their actions. The offender's medical and psychological issues were considered, resulting in a finding of special circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate level of sentence for the offence of affray, taking into account the offender's guilty plea, the high level of objective gravity, and the need for significant general deterrence. The court also had to consider the offender's medical and psychological issues, which resulted in a finding of special circumstances. The court balanced these factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court considered the offender's guilty plea at a late stage, which resulted in a 10% discount to the sentence. The court also considered the high level of objective gravity of the offence, which required significant general deterrence. The court did not consider the offender's criminal history to be a significant factor in the sentencing decision. The court also considered the offender's medical and psychological issues, which resulted in a finding of special circumstances. The court found that the offender did not express any remorse for their actions. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was [insert sentence], taking into account all of the relevant factors.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to [insert sentence] for the offence of affray, with a 10% discount for the guilty plea at a late stage. The court also found special circumstances based on the offender's medical and psychological issues. The offender was ordered to pay a fine of [insert amount] and was disqualified from driving for [insert period]. The offender was also ordered to participate in a rehabilitation program for [insert period].

Orders