R v Alsharify

Case [2019] NSWDC 795


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Alsharify [2019] NSWDC 795
Hearing dates: 14-16, 19-23, 26 August 2019 (Trial), 18 October 2019 (Sentence Hearing)
Date of orders: 08 November 2019
Decision date: 08 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

See [81]-[83]

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Reckless wounding – Assessment of facts based on jury verdict – Use of sword – Whether moral culpability reduced due to Iraqi background – Extent of protective factors providing for good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168
R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 553
R v West [2014] NSWCCA 250
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
Texts Cited: N/A
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ahmed Alsharify (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:

 

Ms E. Curran (Crown Solicitor Advocate)
Mr F. Santisi (For the Offender)

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Abbas & Co Lawyers
File Number(s): 18/95967
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

  1. On 14 August 2019 the Offender was arraigned before me in relation to charges that on 26 March 2018 in Canley Vale:

  1. he did wound Faysal Faysal with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to section 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); and in the alternative that

  2. he recklessly wounded Faysal Faysal contrary to section 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  1. Following an eight day trial the jury found the Offender not guilty of the principle charge, but guilty of the alternative.

  2. The Offender is now to be sentenced in relation to the offence of which he has been found guilty and which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and a standard non-parole period of 3 years.

  3. First it is necessary for me to determine the facts on which the Offender is to be sentenced consistent with the jury’s verdict.

  4. The Offender was in a relationship with Ms Eman Eliaali at the time of the offence. The Victim, Mr Faysal Faysal, was the ex-boyfriend of Ms Eliaali. There was an enforceable AVO, with Ms Eliaali as the person in need of protection. On the evening of 25 March 2019 the Victim stayed over at Ms Eliaadi’s unit at Canley Vale.

  5. At about 11:00am on 26 March 2018, Ms Eliaali attended the Liverpool Police Station. She was accompanied by the Offender and complained about the Victim who was staying at her apartment at Canley Vale. Ms Elliaadi stated that that day she and the Offender “got back together.” [1] There was evidence from Ms Elliaadi that she reported to the police that the Victim had assaulted her the previous evening. No immediate action appears to have been taken by the police.

    1. T 204.47.

  6. After spending the day together, the Offender drove Ms Eliaali and her three children aged 5, 7 and 9, back to her unit at Canley Vale and parked in the unit car park.

  7. Ms Eliaali stated that the Victim and the Offender had not previously met although they…

Continue reading R v Alsharify

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Alsharify [2019] NSWDC 795
Case
[2019] NSWDC 795
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Alsharify came before the court in relation to an incident of reckless wounding. The defendant, Alsharify, was convicted by a jury and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. Alsharify, a man of Iraqi background, had used a sword in an attack resulting in injury to another individual. The legal issues the court needed to address were the assessment of facts based on the jury's verdict, the implications of Alsharify's cultural background on his moral culpability, and the extent to which protective factors might influence the prospects of his rehabilitation.

The court began by considering the facts as determined by the jury, which established that Alsharify had indeed committed the act of reckless wounding using a sword. In addressing the question of moral culpability, the court noted that while Alsharify's Iraqi background might inform his actions, it did not absolve him of responsibility. The court emphasised that the law applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their cultural background. In terms of rehabilitation prospects, the court weighed various protective factors, including Alsharify's lack of a prior criminal record, his family support, and his willingness to engage in rehabilitation programs.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering Alsharify's potential for rehabilitation. The court balanced these factors and imposed a sentence that aimed to deter future offending while providing Alsharify with an opportunity to reintegrate into society as a law-abiding citizen. The court's final orders were detailed in the numbered paragraphs [81] to [83] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [81]-[83]

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.