R v Awad - [2007] VSCA 299

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 391 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
ALBERT AWAD

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN JA and COLDREY and CURTAIN AJJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 299

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Guilty plea to armed robbery (1 Count) and robbery (3 Counts) – Offending occurred over two month period upon taxi drivers – Relevant prior convictions – Individual sentences and total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years not manifestly excessive – No error in sentencing Judge’s treatment of appellant’s youth.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr S A Moglia	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

BUCHANAN JA:

I will ask Curtain AJA to deliver the first judgment.

CURTAIN AJA:

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one count of armed robbery and three counts of robbery. The offences occurred in a two-month period between December 2005 and February 2006. Each of the victims were taxi drivers and each of the offences secured modest amounts of money.

The appellant admitted 34 prior convictions from eight court appearances between 1999 and November 2005. These included convictions for theft (nine), attempted theft (two), burglary (four), attempted burglary (two) and, most relevantly, armed robbery. While on remand for these present offences the appellant was dealt with on a consolidation which included three counts of attempted armed robbery committed in July 2005 and offences committed in January and February of 2006 - that is, around the time these present offences were committed.

The offences

The circumstances of the present offences are briefly stated as follows. In respect of count 1, armed robbery, the appellant got into a taxi being driven by the victim at 11 pm on 26 December 2005. He invited the victim to an inner city location on the pretext of viewing items for sale. The two men arrived at the address and caught a lift to the 18th floor. Once there, the victim changed his mind and said he did not want to buy anything and he was going to leave. The appellant grabbed him by the throat, threatened to kill him and demanded money. The victim retaliated by grabbing the appellant and saying he wouldn't give him any money. The appellant then let go, and the victim stood, waiting for the lift. At this point, the appellant produced a syringe in his right hand. The syringe did not have a cap on it and most of it was not visible to the victim, it being covered by the appellant's hand. The appellant again demanded money, and this time the victim gave him $145 cash which he had in his top pocket. The appellant took the money and walked away.

The second count, that of robbery, occurred on 22 January 2006 at 1 pm. The victim in this…

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 Awad

Details

AGLC: R v Awad [2007] VSCA 299
Case: [2007] VSCA 299
Decision Date: 29 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Awad, the appellant faced sentencing after pleading guilty to four counts of armed and ordinary robbery committed against taxi drivers over a two-month period. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offences. The key legal issues before the court included whether the individual sentences for each count and the total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years were manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the appellant's youth.

The court reviewed the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences, which involved significant violence and threats against victims in their place of work. The appellant, who had prior convictions for similar offences, showed a pattern of escalating criminal behaviour. The court examined the totality principle, weighing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the cumulative impact of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The court also found no error in the sentencing judge’s consideration of the appellant's youth, noting that it was appropriately balanced against the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Having considered all relevant factors, the court upheld the sentences imposed, finding no miscarriage of justice. The appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, affirming the original sentence as appropriate given the circumstances. The court did not interfere with the sentencing judge's discretion, recognising the judge's role in balancing the competing interests in criminal sentencing.

Orders