Legal Research
Cases
R v Alameddine

R v Alameddine

Case [2004] NSWCCA 286 1 September 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Alameddine [2004] NSWCCA 286

HEARING DATE(S): 3/8/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Hulme J at 102

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - armed robbery in company - theft of handguns - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether justifiable grievance in relation to sentence of co-offender.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 97(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 98 A Crim R 134
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Daridis NSWCCA 18 December 1986
R v Donovan [2003] NSWCCA 324
R v Bertoncello NSWCCA 5 November 1997
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hosche [2001] NSWCCA 317
R v Lawson [2000] NSWCCA 214
R v McCarroll [1999] NSWCCA 237
R v Moratti NSWCCA 31 July 1995
R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181
R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v Simpson (2001) 126 A Crim R 525
R v Watego [2001] NSWCCA 236
R v Welsh (1996) 90 A Crim 364
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 140 A Crim R 184

PARTIES :
Regina
Mohamed Alameddine

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60151/04

COUNSEL: B Knox SC (Crown)
R Burgess (App)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh
S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0450

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Christie DCJ

- 1 -

60151/04

BEAZLEY JA
WOOD CJ at CL
HULME J
Wednesday 1 September 2004

Regina v Mohamed Alameddine

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Wood CJ at CL.

2 WOOD CJ at CL: The Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Christie, in the District Court, on 24 July 2003. The sentence of imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months, was imposed following the Applicant’s plea of guilty to one count of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, an offence for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years. Fifteen matters were taken into account on a Form 1, of which ten offences were either directly or indirectly associated with the principal offence.

Facts

3 The robbery occurred on 19 June 2002 at the South Western Sydney Firearms Range (“the Firearms Range”) at Condell Park, and involved a significant number of firearms, together with $1680 cash. Police were forewarned of the planned robbery by an informer, as a result of which physical and electronic surveillance was established in relation to Simon Raha,…

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 [2004] NSWCCA 286
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 286
Decision Date: 1 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alameddine, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery in company and theft of handguns. The dispute arose in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and whether there was a justifiable grievance in relation to the sentencing of a co-offender. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 14 years, while his co-offender received a sentence of 12 years. The appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive and that the disparity between the sentences of himself and his co-offender demonstrated a justifiable grievance.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing for serious offences, particularly armed robbery in company and theft of firearms. The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and whether the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offender constituted a justifiable grievance. The court also needed to examine the evidence and circumstances of the case to assess the appropriate punishment for the offences committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the seriousness of the crimes, the role of the appellant in the commission of the offences, and the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing. The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the crimes and the appellant's involvement. The court also determined that there was no justifiable grievance in relation to the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offender, as the sentences reflected the respective roles and contributions of each offender in the commission of the crimes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal and affirming the sentence imposed on the appellant. The judgment emphasised the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when assessing the appropriate punishment for serious offences and highlighted the need for proportionality and parity in sentencing.

Orders