R.V. AL-ZAABI

Case [2001] NSWCCA 538


CITATION: R.V. AL-ZAABI [2001] NSWCCA 538
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60768/00
HEARING DATE(S): 31 October 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:
20 December 2001

PARTIES :


Regina - Appellant
Khalid AL-ZAABI - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Barr J at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/1036
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER :
Goldring DCJ
COUNSEL : Mr G.E. Smith for the Crown
Mr P.M. Strickland for the respondent
SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor for the Crown
D.J. Humphreys for the respondent
CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentencing - Crown Appeal - delay in serving notice of appeal - respondent avoided service - whether Court should decline to interfere with an inadquate sentence
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:
R v Eastway Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1992 unreported
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Clavert Court of Criminal Appeal 18 February 1983 unreported
R v O'Neill Court of Criminal Appeal unreported 24 July 1996
R v Brillo Court of Criminal Appeal unreported 14 May 1997
R v Molesworth [1999] NSWCCA 43
R v Fischer [2001] NSWCCA 143
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227
DECISION: See Judgment at Paragraph 49




                          60768/00
                          Beazley JA
                          Hulme J
                          Barr J

      20 December 2001

Regina v Khalid Al Zaabi

Judgment

1 Beazley JA: I agree with Barr J.

2 Hulme J: I agree with Barr J.

: This is a Crown appeal against sentences imposed upon the Respondent in the District Court. On 3 November 2000 he pleaded guilty to charges that -

          (i) On 29 October 1997 he dishonestly obtained for himself $30,000
          by deception, namely by electronic transfer of funds from his employer’s bank account to his own bank account;
          (ii) On 29 October 1997 he engaged in a transaction, namely the purchase of a motor vehicle, with money which he knew was the proceeds of a serious offence;
          (iii) On 15 February 1998 he dishonestly obtained for himself a financial advantage, namely $10,000, by deception, namely by swiping his bank card into an electronic machine belonging to a shop, thereby creating a refund transaction for his own credit;
          (iv) On 27 February 1998 he dishonestly obtained for himself money, namely $30,000, by deception, namely the unauthorised transfer of funds from the bank account of another organisation to his own bank account;
          (v) On 28 February 1998 he engaged in a transaction, namely the purchase of a number of electrical components worth $3,000, knowing that the money used was the proceeds of a serious offence; and
          (vi) On 2 March 1998 he engaged in a transaction, namely the purchase of some car wheels worth $1,460, with money that he knew was the proceeds of a serious offence.

4 He was sentenced on the first, third and fourth counts to concurrent sentences of two years six months’ imprisonment, commencing on 17 July 2000 and expiring on 16 January 2003.…

Continue reading R.V. AL-ZAABI

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R.V. AL-ZAABI [2001] NSWCCA 538
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 538
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R.V. Al-Zaabi involved the respondent, Al-Zaabi, who was appealing against a sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The Crown, in turn, filed an appeal against the leniency of the sentence, arguing it was inadequate and should be increased. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the Crown's appeal against the sentence should proceed, considering the respondent had avoided service of the notice of appeal. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence was inadequate and warranted an increase.

The court examined the procedural aspect of the case, specifically whether the delay in serving the notice of appeal and the respondent's avoidance of service were sufficient grounds to decline the Crown's appeal. The court found that while the delay was regrettable, it did not constitute a fundamental procedural error that would warrant dismissal of the appeal. Furthermore, the court assessed the adequacy of the sentence, considering the nature of the offence and the principles of sentencing. It concluded that the sentence was inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the crime, warranting an increase.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a retrial of the sentencing process, directing that a more appropriate sentence be imposed. The court emphasised that the sentence must adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and serve the principles of deterrence and retribution. The final orders included a direction for the County Court to conduct a new sentencing hearing, ensuring that the sentence would be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.