R v Aumash

Case [2020] NSWDC 168

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Aumash [2020] NSWDC 168
Hearing dates: 01 May 2020
Decision date: 01 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

See orders [65] – [68]

Catchwords:

SENTENCE – Aggravated break and enter – intimidation.

  SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence - early guilty plea - multiple domestic violence offences - Form 1 - victim targeted - victim impact - need for denunciation - specific deterrence - prior record - limited prospects - need for drug rehabilitation and psychological treatment - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crime Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal and Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Ahmu v R; DPP v Ahmu [2014] NSWCCA 312
Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
CD v R [2013] VSCA 95
Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Munda v The Queen [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 (2013) 249 CLR 600
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128
R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110
R v Dunn (2004) 144 A Crim R 180
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Texts Cited: Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, V 149. No.4. p 497.
Category:Sentence
Parties: Ahmed Aumash (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr D McMahon (for the offender)

  Solicitors:
Eliopoulos Lawyers (for the offender)
Ms T Collison (Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s): 2019/00176182
Publication restriction: The name of the complainant is not to be published, nor is any other material that could lead to the identification of that complainant: s578A of the Crimes Act 1900; S15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.In the published judgment the complainant will be referred to by a pseudonym.

SENTENCE

  1. Pseudonym order: In order to preserve the anonymity and privacy of the complainant she will be referred to by the pseudonym, Ms White.

Introduction

  1. In March 2018 Ahmed Aumash formed a relationship with Ms White (a pseudonym). Ms White lived in southern Wollongong with her young son. Aumash lived in Western Sydney but would stay with Ms White regularly. After about a year Ms White ended the relationship due to Aumash’s controlling behaviour and anger. Aumash did not accept her ending their relationship. Between April and June 2019 Aumash committed a series of crimes against Ms White; three are…

Continue reading R v Aumash

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aumash [2020] NSWDC 168
Case
[2020] NSWDC 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aumash involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to aggravated break and enter, where the victim was intimidated. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various relevant factors. These factors included the defendant's early guilty plea, his history of multiple domestic violence offences, the use of a Form 1, the targeted nature of the victim, the impact on the victim, the need for denunciation, specific deterrence, the defendant's prior criminal record, his limited prospects for rehabilitation, and the necessity for drug rehabilitation and psychological treatment. The court also considered any special circumstances that might affect the sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the extensive list of relevant factors. The court needed to balance these factors to ensure the sentence was proportionate to the offence, served as a deterrent, and facilitated the defendant's rehabilitation. The court had to assess the gravity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victim, while also considering the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation and the broader societal need for denunciation of such crimes.

The court carefully weighed each factor, starting with the defendant's early guilty plea, which was considered a significant mitigating factor. However, the court also noted the defendant's extensive history of domestic violence offences and the targeted nature of the victim, which increased the seriousness of the offence. The court recognised the need to denounce such behaviour and deter the defendant and others from committing similar crimes. After considering the defendant's prior record, limited prospects for rehabilitation, and the necessity for drug rehabilitation and psychological treatment, the court determined an appropriate sentence that balanced these factors. The final orders were detailed in the court's reasons and included specific directives for the defendant's rehabilitation and treatment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders [65] – [68]

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.