R v Alameddine - [2005] NSWCCA 68

CITATION:
Regina v Walid Alameddine [2005] NSWCCA 68

HEARING DATE(S): 3 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

3 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1, 21, 23; James J at 22; Barr J at 2

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.

PARTIES:
Regina, Walid Alameddine

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2864

COUNSEL:
Stratton SC
Lamprati SC

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales
S Kavanagh

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/0379

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Payne DCJ

- 5 -

3864/2004

GROVE J
JAMES J
BARR J

REGINA v WALID ALAMEDDINE

Judgment

1 GROVE J: We are in a position to give judgment. I will ask Barr J to give the first judgment.

2 BARR J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a sentence imposed in the District Court. The respondent, Walid Alameddine, pleaded guilty to two charges of robbery in company and one of assault with intent to rob. On 28 October 2004, Payne DCJ remanded the respondent to 10 March 2005 for sentence. Her Honour granted bail on conditions which included requirements that the respondent accept the supervision and obey all reasonable directions of the Probation and Parole Service during the period of remand; that he remain in employment; that he be of good behaviour and that he attend the District Court for sentence on the adjourned day.

3 The three offences arose out of a single criminal enterprise. The complainants were three boys of fourteen and fifteen years of age who, on 12 September 2003, were walking in the street minding their own business. The respondent and his companion, a youth whom it is inappropriate to identify in this appeal, walked up to them. The respondent’s companion was carrying a stick about half a metre long. He asked the first boy whether he had a phone. He said that he did not and the companion searched him. As he did so, he held the stick in both hands above his right shoulder and swung it back and forth.

4 The respondent went up to a second boy and told him that he would stab him if he did not give him his mobile phone. As he said the words he held his right hand behind his back. Although he did not have a knife his intention was to make the boy think that he did have a knife. That is what the boy thought. He was afraid of being stabbed and handed over his mobile telephone.

5 The respondent went up to the third boy and threatened to stab him as well. He stole the boy’s bum bag, which contained his wallet with about $35 inside it, and other items. The respondent and his companion got into a car driven by somebody else and drove away.

6 The three boys were terrified and ran to the home of one of them, which was close by. The boy’s parents raised the alarm, called the police and gave chase. The respondent, his…

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 Alameddine

Details

AGLC: R v Alameddine [2005] NSWCCA 68
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 68
Decision Date: 3 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Walid Alameddine concerned an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed by the District Court on Walid Alameddine, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in company and one count of assault with intent to rob. The three offences involved the appellant and his accomplice threatening and robbing three young boys of their personal belongings. The case raised the issue of whether the District Court judge erred in deferring sentencing to allow for potential rehabilitation of the appellant, as per Section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The Crown argued that the judge should have imposed the sentence immediately, given the complete pre-sentence report, psychiatric assessment, and known facts of the case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the submissions by the Crown and the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. The judges found that the District Court judge's decision to defer sentencing was not supported by any reasonable prospect of learning significant new information that would influence the sentencing discretion. The judges noted the unfairness and injustice resulting from unnecessary delays in court proceedings, particularly in sentencing. While the Crown suggested that the Court quash the order and remit the matter to the District Court for immediate hearing, the Court of Criminal Appeal decided against this course of action, as it would likely cause further delay. Instead, the Court declined to interfere with the District Court's decision, and the appeal was dismissed. The judges agreed that the matter should proceed as scheduled before the District Court judge, who had not indicated any intention to deviate from the usual sentencing process.

Orders