R v Attar, Ali

[2010] NSWDC 199

CITATION:	R v ATTAR, Ali; HAWAT, Hasan & HUYNH, John [2010] NSWDC 199
JUDGMENT DATE:	11 June 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	ALI ATTAR: Convicted. Sentence to 2 years and 2 months imprisonment; a non-parole period of 20 months. Sentence be served by way of periodic detention. Balance of term of 6 months. HASAN HAWAT: Convicted. Sentence 20 months imprisonment. Sentence suspended John Huynh Convicted Sentenced 2 years and 6 months imprisonment; non-parole period of 22 months; balance of term 8 months; sentence be served by way of periodic detention.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - sentence - co-offenders - robbery - department store takings - inside planning - takings $81,000 - roles assigned - planner, recruiter and loot delivery - target identifier - robber - getaway driver - $5,000 recovered - serious example of offence, early pleas.
CASES CITED:	Regina v Rause unreported NSWCCA 8 August 1992 Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80] R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329
PARTIES:	Regina Ali Attar Hasan Hawat John Huynh
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/00073023; 2009/00256748; 2009/00057735
COUNSEL:	Defence for HAWAT: P Linegar Defence for HUYNH: G Heathcoate
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Ms T Roberts Defence for ATTAR: Mr R Macaulay

JUDGMENT
1. In September and October 2008 John Huynh was an employee of Bing Lee. Ali Attar, known to Huynh through a family relative, was a customer of Bing Lee, served on occasion by Huynh in September 2008. Hasan Hawat worked out in a Bankstown gym where Attar also worked out. These three with one HA - I have used initials because he is an alleged offender yet to be tried - agreed to rob and did rob a Bing Lee employee of $81,000 in cash in circumstances I shall describe in more detail shortly.
2. Today, each of these three offenders is to be held accountable for his role in this robbery. As sentencing judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentence for each offender before the court harming this victim in the community in which it occurred, see Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1SCR 688 [80].
3. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offence before the court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to each of the offenders known as subjective matters. The starting point for these assessments requires me to make findings of fact from the material before the court relating to both the offence and the relevant offender. My fact finding task has been circumscribed to some extent in that the parties have tendered an agreed set of facts to which I will shortly return. It is sufficient that at this point I remind all that a judge is not party to an agreed set of facts. The tender of agreed facts does not relieve him or her from the fact…