R v Ali - [2003] VSC 182

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1411 of 2003

THE QUEEN

ALI ALI

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5-19 May & 2-3 June 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 June 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ali Ali
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 182

---

Criminal Law - Sentencing – Intentionally causing serious injury – Vicious stomping on head of vulnerable victim - Victim occasioned brain damage – Victim left without purposeful activity or communication – Few mitigating factors – sixteen years prison – non-parole period of thirteen years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Horgan SC and Mr W Morgan-Payler QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Lovitt QC with Mr D Hannan	Balot Reilly & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Ali Ali. You have been found guilty by a jury of intentionally causing serious injury to Michael Tully on 29 April 1999 at the Melbourne Custody Centre.

On that day, you were required to be in the Melbourne Magistrates Court. You were placed in cell 28 in the Custody Centre, which is in the basement of the Court building. The cell is 3.4 metres long and 3.1 metres wide. There is a hard bench on each of the north and south sides of the cell. A surveillance camera is housed in the ceiling. One reason for the camera being there was to have available a record by film frames of events in the cell. Due to a technical problem, the camera system was not operating as it should have been on the critical day. No record of what took place was made.

Shortly after 1 p.m., lunch was due to be brought in. There were then twelve occupants in cell 28. You were one of the 12. Michael Tully was also in cell 28. He was a man who suffered mental and intellectual handicaps. Another cell occupant engaged Michael Tully in conversation. He was asked how he came to be in custody. You picked up on part of that conversation, when he spoke of a teenage girl. You erroneously jumped to the conclusion that Michael Tully was some kind of sex offender. You abused him. You spat on him. You kicked him. A custody officer saw part of the kick. He asked you why you had done that. You pointed to Michael Tully. You claimed that Michael Tully had spat on you. You were then taken out of the cell. You promised that there would be no more trouble. You were persuasive. You were allowed to return to the cell.

Back in the cell, you called for a sticker from a lunchbox to be placed over the camera. Your direction was obeyed. When that was done, you punched Michael Tully. Michael Tully dropped so that his head was on the hard surfaced bench. There, you stomped on Michael Tully’s head, some 5 times. You said that you would do the…

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 [2003] VSC 182
Case: [2003] VSC 182
Decision Date: 4 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ali involved a defendant who was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a vulnerable victim. The victim was viciously stomped on the head, which led to brain damage, leaving the victim without purposeful activity or communication. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the severity of the crime and the impact on the victim.

The court needed to weigh various factors in determining the sentence, including the gravity of the offence, the extent of the harm caused, and any mitigating factors. The court found that the crime was exceptionally heinous and that the victim had suffered severe and lasting consequences. While the defendant had few mitigating factors, the court concluded that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for general deterrence. After considering all relevant factors, the court sentenced the defendant to sixteen years in prison, with a non-parole period of thirteen years. The court's decision was based on the need to protect the community and to send a strong message about the consequences of such violent behaviour.

Orders