R v Alhassan - [2025] VSC 201

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0047
S ECR 2023 0162

THE KING	Crown
v
MUSTAFA ALHASSAN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF PLEA HEARING:	26 March 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Alhassan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 201

---

SENTENCE — Homicide by firearm — Handling stolen property — Deceased shot in the chest by offender in the course of an aggravated home invasion by multiple masked and armed offenders — Offender later sold a stolen firearm to covert operatives — Young offender — No criminal antecedents — Late plea of guilty — Delay — Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation — Harsher conditions on remand due to pandemic — Appropriate to impose substantially longer sentence than was imposed on co-offenders who pleaded guilty much earlier to manslaughter on a complicity basis — R v Mohamed [2024] VSC 318 — DPP v Sisal [2024] VSC 589 — Azzopardi v R (2011) 35 VR 43 — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5A, 11A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson KC with Ms J Poole	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms K Argiropoulos SC with Mr S Cooper	Gallant Law

Contents
CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE
Disputed Facts
Victim Impact
Objective Seriousness of the Offence

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER
Family
Progress on Remand
Criminal Antecedents
Character References
Procedural History
Psychological Report
Summary of Mitigating Circumstances

DISPARITY
SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR:

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

Mustafa Alhassan, you pleaded guilty to homicide by firearm, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, and handling stolen property, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
On 21 August 2021, a fist fight broke out between Chris Habiyakare (the deceased) and one Abdi Abdisalan, who was visiting the deceased’s home at 33 Essex Street, Sunshine North. You and your co-offenders learned of that incident and opportunistically planned an aggravated invasion of the deceased’s home (the August home invasion) in the belief that Abdisalan and his associates would be suspected as the culprits. You intended to rob the deceased. You believed that he had up to a million dollars at his home from drug trafficking.
On 24 August 2021, you acted on this plan. You were party to a joint criminal enterprise with at least three others (including Mohamed Mohamed and Daniel Sisal, whom I have already sentenced).[1] Mohamed drove you and your co-offenders to the deceased’s home in his mother’s Holden Astra. Three of your party were armed: you had a loaded, sawn off, .22 calibre, single barrel rifle, another had a machete and a third had a live taser. The deceased and five of his friends or associates were watching TV just before the home invasion. There was knocking at the front door which the deceased answered, at which point you and your co-offenders, all wearing face masks, burst into his house, smashing a front door glass panel in…

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 Alhassan

Details

AGLC: R v Alhassan [2025] VSC 201
Case: [2025] VSC 201
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Alhassan involved a defendant who had participated in an aggravated home invasion with multiple masked and armed offenders. During the course of this invasion, the deceased was fatally shot in the chest. The defendant later sold a firearm stolen during the incident to covert operatives. This case brought to light issues concerning homicide by firearm and handling stolen property. The legal issues at hand required the court to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his young age, lack of criminal antecedents, the late plea of guilty, the delay in the proceedings, the reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, and the harsher conditions the defendant faced on remand due to the pandemic.

The court considered the principles outlined in relevant case law and statutory provisions. Notably, the court referred to the precedent set by R v Mohamed and DPP v Sisal, which dealt with similar circumstances of aggravated home invasions and manslaughter. Furthermore, the court examined the principles articulated in Azzopardi v R concerning the sentencing of young offenders and the factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), particularly sections 5A and 11A, which address the principles of sentencing and the objectives to be achieved through sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation.

Upon weighing the various factors, the court determined that the circumstances of the offence warranted a sentence that was substantially longer than those imposed on the defendant's co-offenders, who had pleaded guilty much earlier to manslaughter on a complicity basis. The court found that the delay in the defendant's plea of guilty, coupled with his role in the fatal shooting and the sale of the stolen firearm, necessitated a harsher sentence. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's young age and lack of criminal history, which could potentially contribute to his rehabilitation. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation, while also considering the unique circumstances of this case.

The final orders of the court included a sentence that was substantially longer than those of the co-offenders, reflecting the seriousness of the defendant's involvement in the aggravated home invasion and the fatal shooting of the deceased. The sentence also aimed to achieve the objectives of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, while taking into account the defendant's age and the potential for his rehabilitation.

Orders