R v Ahmad Hassoun - [2016] NSWDC 409

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ahmad Hassoun [2016] NSWDC 409
Date of orders: 11 November 2016
Decision date: 11 November 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Tupman DCJ
Decision:
See orders [59]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Sentence after Trial – arson and attempting dishonestly to obtain money by deception – fire lit at night in a smash repair business in Kogarah owned by the offender – business in financial decline – fire set by unknown persons but with offenders knowledge and to enable him to make a fraudulent insurance claim – no money ever paid to offender by insurance company – extensive damage to premises and stock – no immediate threat to others – around mid-range of objective seriousness – considerable delay between offence and trial – intervening Coroner’s enquiry but 3 years between Coroner’s recommendation and ex officio indictment – delay unexplained – lengthy demonstrated rehabilitation and stale crime – limited criminal history – offender made no gain out of offence and lost his business – Crown submitted prison term required but full time not necessary
Legislation Cited: Coroners Act 2009 ss 61, 78(3)
Crimes Act 1900 ss 178BA(1), 178BB(1) and 197(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5 and 12
Cases Cited: Coles v R [2016] NSWCCA 32
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ahmad Hassoun (Offender)
Representation: N Scully (DPP)
D Hooper (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/249825
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The offender, Ahmad Hassoun, is before the Court for sentence following his conviction by a jury after trial on three counts in an indictment. They are as follows:
Count 1: That on or about 8 August 2008 at Kogarah he dishonestly, with a view to making a gain for himself, by means of fire, damaged property at Railway Parade Kogarah. This offence, which I will refer to as the arson charge, is an offence contrary to s 197(1)(b) of Crimes Act1900 and as such, carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment;
Count 2: That between 1 September 2008 and 31 October 2008 at Sydney he attempted dishonestly to obtain money by deception, namely, lodging an insurance claim with Lumley Insurance dated 4 September 2008. This is an offence contrary to s 178BA(1) of the Crimes Act which carries the maximum penalty of five years imprisonment in this Court;
Count 3: That between 1 September 2008 and 31 October 2008 at Sydney, with the intention of making money, he concurred in the making of financial records, knowing them to be false in a material particular, namely, the financial position of Signature Auto Body, with reckless disregard as to whether it was true, false or misleading. This is an offence contrary to s 178BB(1) of Crimes Act which also carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
Both counts 2 and 3 are capable of being dealt with in the Local Court, where the jurisdictional limit of two years for each of them would
apply. There is no doubt that they…

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 Ahmad Hassoun

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmad Hassoun [2016] NSWDC 409
Case: [2016] NSWDC 409
Decision Date: 11 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ahmad Hassoun dealt with an appeal against sentence in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Ahmad Hassoun, was convicted of arson and attempting to dishonestly obtain money by deception. The offences involved setting fire to his own smash repair business in Kogarah, which was experiencing financial difficulties. The fire was set with Hassoun's knowledge to facilitate a fraudulent insurance claim, although no money was ever paid to him by the insurance company. The blaze caused significant damage to the premises and stock but did not pose an immediate threat to others.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Hassoun, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as his personal circumstances. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the crime, which was in the mid-range of objective seriousness, with factors such as the considerable delay between the offence and the trial, the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation, and his limited criminal history. The Crown argued that a prison term was necessary, though it did not need to be full-time. The defence highlighted that Hassoun had not financially benefited from the offence and had lost his business as a result.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, focusing on the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation. It found that the delay between the offence and the trial, although considerable, did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The court also noted the lack of direct gain to Hassoun and his efforts to rehabilitate over the years. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary but did not need to be full-time, taking into account all the circumstances.

The orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term, reflecting the balance of the various factors considered. The specific details of the sentence were outlined in order [59].

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders [59]

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 Ahmad Hassoun [2016] NSWDC 409
Date of orders:	11 November 2016
Decision date:	11 November 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Tupman DCJ
Decision:	See orders [59]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence after Trial – arson and attempting dishonestly to obtain money by deception – fire lit at night in a smash repair business in Kogarah owned by the offender – business in financial decline – fire set by unknown persons but with offenders knowledge and to enable him to make a fraudulent insurance claim – no money ever paid to offender by insurance company – extensive damage to premises and stock – no immediate threat to others – around mid-range of objective seriousness – considerable delay between offence and trial – intervening Coroner’s enquiry but 3 years between Coroner’s recommendation and ex officio indictment – delay unexplained – lengthy demonstrated rehabilitation and stale crime – limited criminal history – offender made no gain out of offence and lost his business – Crown submitted prison term required but full time not necessary
Legislation Cited:	Coroners Act 2009 ss 61, 78(3) Crimes Act 1900 ss 178BA(1), 178BB(1) and 197(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5 and 12
Cases Cited:	Coles v R [2016] NSWCCA 32
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ahmad Hassoun (Offender)
Representation:	N Scully (DPP) D Hooper (Offender)
File Number(s):	2015/249825
Publication restriction:	Nil