R v Ali - [2007] VSC 350

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1411 of 2003

THE QUEEN

ALI ALI

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 September 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 September, 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v. Ali Ali
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 350

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Intentionally Cause Serious Injury

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Dean S.C. with Mr M. Dempsy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Van de Weil Q.C.	Ms Lee Ristivojevic

HER HONOUR:

Ali Ali, you have been found guilty by jury verdict of intentionally causing serious injury and have admitted 104 prior convictions from 15 Court appearances.

In April 1999 you were in custody on remand. On 29 April you were taken to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for a bail hearing. You were held below at the Melbourne Custody Centre, taken up to Court and upon your return, you were placed in Cell 28. Cell 28 is approximately 3 metres by 3 metres. There is a bench on either side, one longer than the other, a toilet and a wash basin. In the ceiling in the corner there is a security camera.

The cell was overcrowded. There were 12 people in it. Michael Tully had been brought in from Mont Park to attend Court on an armed robbery charge. He had a simple manner and his vulnerability was apparent to others in the cell and no doubt, to you. You started talking to him. Mr Tully responded to your questioning by apparently agreeing with you. Witnesses said he looked scared and fearful and he was saying things to you in an effort to go along with you. It appears that you formed the erroneous view that he was a paedophile.

At some short time after one o’clock, lunch was brought to the cell. Mr Haysom, the custody officer responsible for distributing the lunches, looked through the window of the cell door and saw you in the process of commencing a roundhouse or twirling kick. Mr Haysom did not see the kick connect, although inmates spoke of you hitting and spitting at Mr Tully.

Mr Haysom called you out of the cell. You complained that you had been spat on. Mr Haysom reprimanded you and extracted from you an assurance that you would behave. You were returned to the cell. Within a short time, you continued goading Mr Tully. Some of the inmates endeavoured to prevail upon you. Mr Langenhoff told you to stop and Mr Richmiller cautioned you that Mr Tully was not what you thought he was. Despite this, you took a sticker from a lunchbox and giving it to another of the inmates, told him to cover the camera. This he did and you then proceeded to attack Mr Tully.

The assault was variously described as starting with a punch or a kick to the head or to the body. However it…

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 Ali

Details

AGLC: R v Ali [2007] VSC 350
Case: [2007] VSC 350
Decision Date: 12 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Ali, was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to another individual. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia to review the sentence imposed on Ali. The key issue before the court was whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. Ali argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate, while the prosecution contended that the sentence was justified and appropriate given the severity of the injury caused.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly focusing on the need to balance deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court also examined the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the injury and the intent behind the act. It was noted that the injury was severe and had long-lasting effects on the victim, which warranted a significant sentence. However, the court also took into account the possibility of rehabilitation and the potential for Ali to contribute positively to society in the future.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not disproportionate to the crime committed. The gravity of the injury and the intent behind the act justified a substantial punishment. However, the court acknowledged that the sentence could be considered harsh and directed the lower court to consider whether there were any mitigating factors that could be taken into account in future sentencing reviews. The court's decision affirmed the sentence but provided guidance for potential adjustments in the future based on new information or changes in Ali's circumstances.

Orders