R v Alfar, Attallah

Case [2017] NSWDC 280


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v ALFAR, Attallah [2017] NSWDC 280
Hearing dates: 4 August 2017
Date of orders: 04 August 2017
Decision date: 04 August 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Full details at [92].

Catchwords: Criminal – sentence – conspiracy to commit offence – dispose of property known to have been stolen – car re-birthing – additional matters on the Form 1 – conspiracy to cheat or defraud – Sentence – 58 years old - historical offences occurring 15 years earlier – leading role in the criminal operation – co-offenders already sentenced – parity – prior criminal record in Australia – deteriorating health of the offender – delay in prosecution – discount for the utilitarian benefit of the plea of guilty – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
King (NSWCCA, 24 February 1998, unreported)
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121
R v Pickard [2011] SASCFC 134
R v Schwabegger (1998) 4 VR 649
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Regina v Gay [2002] NSWCCA 6
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Savvas (No 2) v The Queen (1991) 58 A Crim R 175
Tyler v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247
Veen (No. 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Attallah Alfar
Representation: Counsel:
Mr. Hughes – Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr. Ainsworth – Offender
File Number(s): 2013/214747
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

  1. HIS HONOUR: I want to say from the outset in this matter that the sentencing of this particular prisoner has presented some difficulty for the Court. I do not in any way claim to be anywhere near perfect in terms of determining appropriate sentences for offenders, but the difficulties in this matter have arisen primarily because of the extended period of time since the offending and, dare I say, the uncertainty of events since the offending in terms of attributing any responsibility or blame for the extensive delay that has occurred.

  2. According to the chronology provided by the Crown, the prisoner pleaded guilty on 3 August 2016 to a charge alleging that he, the prisoner, between 24 November 2001 and 1 August 2002 at Sydney and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales with Andrew Alfar and others conspired together to dispose of property, at the time of knowing that the said property had been stolen. The matter on the Form 1 is an allegation of conspiracy to cheat and defraud insurance companies, the facts of which I will come to shortly.

  3. Dealing with this issue of delay. The prisoner, although alleged to have committed this offence between late November and 1 August 2002, travelled to Jordan with Andrew Alfar, his son, on 2 June 2002. Whilst the prisoner was absent from the…

Continue reading R v Alfar, Attallah

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Alfar, Attallah [2017] NSWDC 280
Case
[2017] NSWDC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Alfar and Attallah, were convicted of conspiracy to dispose of property known to have been stolen and conspiracy to cheat or defraud. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the sentencing of the appellants, with arguments made regarding the appropriate length of their custodial sentences.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appellants' historical criminal activities warranted a specific sentence, the significance of the appellants' roles in the criminal operations, the utility of their guilty pleas, and the impact of their deteriorating health on sentencing. The court was also required to consider whether the delay in prosecution should be a mitigating factor and whether the sentences should align with those of their co-offenders.

The court found that the appellants played a leading role in the criminal operation and had significant prior criminal records. However, it also noted the delay in prosecution and the appellants' deteriorating health, which warranted a discount in their sentences. The court determined that the sentences should reflect the gravity of the offences and the appellants' roles but also take into account the mitigating factors. The court imposed full-time custodial sentences, with specific details provided in the judgment.

The High Court ordered that full-time custodial sentences be imposed on Alfar and Attallah, with the specifics detailed at [92] of the judgment. The court balanced the severity of the crimes with the mitigating factors to arrive at the final sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Full details at [92].

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.