R v Abdulhamid Shahrouk - [2011] NSWDC 228

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Abdulhamid SHAHROUK [2011] NSWDC 228
Decision date: 16 December 2011
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
For the crime of aggravated arson, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. For kidnapping, a sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment. Overall sentence of 4 years imprisonment. Single non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - kidnapping - aggravated arson - sentence - relevant factors - gravity of offence - arson - mid range seriousness - extensive damage, significant financial loss and risk to the public - premeditation - participated in arson to relieve household financial situation - prior criminality - negligible record - non-parole period - special circumstances - first time in custody.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s 86(2)(a), 195(1A)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32
Cases Cited: SZ v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 249
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Abdulhamid SHAHROUK (Accused)
Representation: Counsel
D Drewett (Accused)
Solicitor
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): DC 2010/343372

sentence

I am sentencing a young man with a negligible criminal record for some serious criminal behaviour. He burned a shop down and kidnapped a passer-by. He had earlier telephoned the restaurant with a bomb threat. The young man's name is Abdulhamid Shahrouk and he is aged 23.

Abdulhamid Shahrouk was charged with two offences that I am sentencing him for. When I sentence him for one of the offences he has asked me to take into account a third offence.

The first offence I am sentencing him for is called destroy property in company by fire. I will refer to it as arson or aggravated arson. It is aggravated because Mr Shahrouk was not alone when he committed the crime. That crime is an offence against s 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament has fixed a maximum of 11 years imprisonment to the crime.

The other offence that I am sentencing him for is called detaining a person in company with intention to obtain an advantage. That is a legal way of referring to kidnapping. That is a crime against s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act. It carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.

When I am sentencing Mr Shahrouk for the aggravated arson I have been asked to take into account an offence of giving false information that a person or property was in danger. I will take that into account and I sign and date a document which contains that additional charge, produced under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. That document is part of exhibit A.

It is important when a judge is sentencing a person for the judge to set out briefly what happened so that an assessment can be made of how serious an example of the crime the particular offence was, or offences were. In this case the owner of an Indian restaurant business in Redfern was alleged…

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 Abdulhamid Shahrouk

Details

AGLC: R v Abdulhamid Shahrouk [2011] NSWDC 228
Case: [2011] NSWDC 228
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Abdulhamid Shahrouk, the respondent was convicted of kidnapping and aggravated arson. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Shahrouk's crimes, taking into account the gravity of the offences, his premeditation, and his prior criminal record.

The court had to assess the seriousness of the aggravated arson, which involved extensive damage, significant financial loss, and a risk to the public. It was acknowledged that Shahrouk participated in the arson to alleviate a financial burden on his household. However, the court also needed to consider his negligible criminal history, which was a mitigating factor. The court balanced these considerations and concluded that the arson warranted a mid-range sentence, while the kidnapping, though serious, was less severe.

In determining the overall sentence, the court set a non-parole period of two years and four months, reflecting the significant harm caused by the arson and the lesser culpability for the kidnapping. The court imposed a sentence of three years for the aggravated arson and one year and ten months for the kidnapping, to be served concurrently, resulting in an overall sentence of four years imprisonment. This balanced the severity of the crimes with the mitigating factors, ensuring a just outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

For the crime of aggravated arson, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. For kidnapping, a sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment. Overall sentence of 4 years imprisonment. Single non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Abdulhamid SHAHROUK [2011] NSWDC 228
Decision date:	16 December 2011
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	For the crime of aggravated arson, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. For kidnapping, a sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment. Overall sentence of 4 years imprisonment. Single non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - kidnapping - aggravated arson - sentence - relevant factors - gravity of offence - arson - mid range seriousness - extensive damage, significant financial loss and risk to the public - premeditation - participated in arson to relieve household financial situation - prior criminality - negligible record - non-parole period - special circumstances - first time in custody.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, s 86(2)(a), 195(1A)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32
Cases Cited:	SZ v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 249
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Abdulhamid SHAHROUK (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel D Drewett (Accused) Solicitor Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):	DC 2010/343372