District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Askarou [2020] NSWDC 68 Hearing dates: 23/7/19-21/8/19, 15/11/19, 10/12/19, 16/12/19, 6/3/20 Date of orders: 06 March 2020 Decision date: 06 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bourke SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years 6 months with a NPP of 10 years 6 months.
Catchwords: Crime – Sentence – Shoot with intent to murder Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: R v Gonzales [2004] NSW SC 822 Category: Sentence Parties: DPP (Crown)
Naramsin Askarou (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Paish for the Crown
Mr T Hughes for the Offender
File Number(s): 2018/12583
Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: On 21 August 2019, the offender, Mr Naramsin Askarou, after a trial lasting twenty-two days, was found guilty by a jury of an offence of shoot with intent to murder. The maximum penalty for that offence is twenty-five years imprisonment and the offence is subject to a standard non-parole period of ten years.
-
I am required to find facts which are consistent with the verdict of the jury. Any facts adverse to the offender must be established beyond reasonable doubt, however matters in mitigation need only be proved on the balance of probabilities.
-
The facts about which I am satisfied are as follows. At the time of the offence the victim, Mr Zia Kryo and the offender had known each other for around fourteen years, the offender having been in the year above Mr Kryo at a high school in Greenfield Park. The two young men became friends, and remained friends for a period of time after leaving high school. However, according to the victim, they drifted apart from about 2012 and apart from an encounter in 2014 they saw little or nothing of each other thereafter.
-
On 28 July 2016 the victim arrived at his home at 5 Nugent Place, Prairiewood, about 5pm or shortly thereafter. Some time later he left the premises. While there was a good deal of cross-examination about his movements thereafter, during the trial, there is no doubt that at about 10.20pm that evening he reversed his Toyota Hi-Lux into the driveway of number 5 Nugent Place. Shortly after, Mr Kryo got out of his Toyota and approached the front door of his house. As he did so the offender, wearing a black face covering, approached the victim and shot at him three times from close range before running away. The victim was struck by one bullet which entered the left side of his body. The victim’s mother, Mrs Janine Kryo was in the garage of the premises at the time and immediately ran to her son. Multiple witnesses in nearby houses contacted emergency services after hearing gunshots. A triple-0 call by Mr Roni Audisho was made at about 10.26pm which is consistent with the shooting occurring at about 10.20pm. After New South Wales Police and ambulance services arrived, a crime scene was established. At the scene police found a number of bullet fragments. Mr Kryo…
Continue reading R v Askarou
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Askarou [2020] NSWDC 68
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate balance between the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The legal issues included the severity of the offence, the defendant’s criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant legislation and case law, particularly focusing on the deterrence and denunciation aspects, as well as any mitigating factors that might warrant a lesser sentence.
In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, emphasising the intent behind the shooting and the potential for significant harm. Despite the defendant’s guilty plea and expressions of remorse, the court found that the nature of the crime necessitated a substantial custodial sentence. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to 15 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months. This decision reflected the court’s view that the sentence should serve both as a punishment and a deterrent, while also considering the likelihood of the defendant’s rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years 6 months with a NPP of 10 years 6 months.
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.