District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Abdulrahman [2020] NSWDC 731 Hearing dates: 25 September 2020 Date of orders: 25 September 2020 Decision date: 25 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: An aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years, 10 months with a non-parole period of 4 years, 6 months: [48].
Catchwords: CRIME — Driving offences — Dangerous driving occasioning death
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty
SENTENCING — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Drug addiction
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Poisons and Thearpeutic Goods Act 1966
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Elkassir v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 181
R v Jurasic (1998) 101 A Crim R 259
R v Whyte (2002)134 A Crim R 53
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Rabih Abdulrahman (Offender)Representation: Ms K Nightingale (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr P Lange (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/279139 Publication restriction: STATUTORY NON PUBLICATION APPLIES
Pursuant to s 15A of Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987, statutory non-publication applies to this matter in relation to the identity of the victim and any minor witnesses.
Judgment
-
At about 8.30am on the morning of 6 September 2019, a 12 year old boy was walking to school at Hurstville. He was a Year 7 student at Sydney Technical High School. He was crossing a pedestrian crossing with the lights in his favour. The offender Rabih Abdulrahman, then aged 36, was driving a car which collided with him. He was a disqualified driver. He was driving at about 65km/h in a 40km/h zone. He drove through a red light and he drove with a number of illicit and non-prescribed substances in his blood, including methylamphetamine, which would have substantially impaired his driving ability.
-
This leads to the offender pleading guilty to one count of manslaughter, contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period, and one count of driving while disqualified which carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment.
-
He pleaded guilty in circumstances justifying a 25% discount on a term of imprisonment. Mr Lange of counsel for the offender, concedes that there is no alternative to full-time custody. He was arrested on the day of the accident. An intensive corrections order was revoked leading to him being in custody for two months and 27 days. As a result of…
Continue reading R v Abdulrahman
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Abdulrahman [2020] NSWDC 731
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 731
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included determining the relevance of the defendant's breach of conditional liberty as an aggravating factor and assessing how the defendant's mental illness and drug addiction should influence the sentencing decision. The court also had to consider the maximum penalty for the offence and the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment. The plea of guilty was acknowledged as a mitigating factor, but the court had to weigh it against the aggravating factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
The court found that the breach of conditional liberty and the objective seriousness of the offence warranted a substantial sentence. However, the defendant's mental illness and drug addiction were significant mitigating factors. The court concluded that an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, was appropriate. This sentence aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation.
The court ordered the defendant to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. This decision reflected the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years, 10 months with a non-parole period of 4 years, 6 months: [48].
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.