R v Al Abbasi - [2017] ACTSC 239

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Al Abbasi
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 239
Hearing Date:	21 August 2017
DecisionDate:	22 August 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [86]–[87]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – robbery and sexual offences against sex workers – sexual assault in the third degree – sexual intercourse without consent in company – attempted sexual intercourse without consent in company – sexual assault in the third degree – sexual intercourse without consent – attempted aggravated robbery – aggravated robbery – guilty plea – males 22 years old and 32 years old – offending conduct involved degree of planning
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 53(1), 53(2), 54(1) and 54(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 36 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44 and 310
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mohammed Al Abbasi (First Offender) Ahmed Al Abbasi (Second Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Gul (Crown) H Ford (First Offender) J Stewart (Second Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hugh Ford (First Offender) Boxall Legal (Second Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 162 of 2016 SCC 292 of 2016 SCC 293A of 2016 SCC 293B of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

These proceedings relate to the sentencing of two brothers, Mohammed and Ahmed Al Abbasi. Ahmed is also known as Khaled and I will refer to him as Khaled in these reasons. Mohammed is aged 22 and Khaled is aged 32. The brothers’ surname, Al Abbasi, has been the subject of numerous spelling or transliteration variations throughout the materials filed in this Court, at the brothers’ arraignment on 28 July 2017, counsel for Ahmed Al Abbasi indicated that the correct spelling of the brothers’ surname is “Al Abbasi”. This is the spelling I have adopted in these reasons.

The offences committed by the offenders occurred on 12 March 2016 and 10 May 2016 and are the subject of two separate indictments for each offender for each series of incidents, the indictments of 7 March 2017 and 24 March 2017 respectively.

The offences to which Mohammed Al Abbasi has pleaded guilty are as follows:

(a)In relation to the events on 12 March 2016:
(i)Two counts of sexual assault in the third degree in company (counts one and two on the indictment dated 7 March 2017). These are offences against s 53(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) for which the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.
(ii)One count of aggravated robbery (count three on the indictment of 7 March 2017). The aggravation is that the robbery was in company. This is an offence against s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) for which the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment or a fine of $375,000 or both.
(iii)Two counts of sexual intercourse without consent in company (counts seven and ten on the indictment). These are the offences against s 54(2) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

(b)In relation to…

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 Al Abbasi

Details

AGLC: R v Al Abbasi [2017] ACTSC 239
Case: [2017] ACTSC 239
Decision Date: 22 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Al Abbasi, the respondents, aged 22 and 32, were convicted of multiple serious criminal offences including robbery and sexual offences against sex workers. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondents pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, sexual assault in the third degree, and attempted sexual intercourse without consent in company. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the respondents' offences, which involved a degree of planning and targeted vulnerable individuals in the context of their employment.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the respondents, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court had to balance the gravity of the offences, the degree of planning involved, and the respondents' guilty pleas. It was also necessary to consider the impact of the offences on the victims and the broader community, as well as any mitigating factors that might be relevant to the sentencing process.

The court considered the severity of the offences, which involved violence and exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It also noted the degree of planning involved in the aggravated robbery, which indicated a premeditated and calculated approach. Despite the respondents' guilty pleas, the court found that the offences were of such gravity that they warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for each respondent was imprisonment for a specified term, with specific conditions and considerations for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders of the court, as outlined in paragraphs [86]–[87] of the judgment, reflect the court's determination of the appropriate sentences for the respondents. The sentences imposed reflect the gravity of the offences, the degree of planning involved, and the need to protect the community from further harm. The court also considered the respondents' guilty pleas and any mitigating factors, but ultimately concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to appropriately address the seriousness of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [86]–[87]

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.