R v Baradaaji

Case [2020] NSWDC 685


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Baradaaji [2020] NSWDC 685
Hearing dates: 7/8/20, 21/8/20, 2/9/20
Date of orders: 2/9/20
Decision date: 02 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 6 months with a NPP of 2 years 4 months (4/2/19-3/6/21). I find special circumstances.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Recklessly cause GBH in company

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571

Greaves v R [2020] NSWCCA 140

Category:Sentence
Parties: DPP (NSW) – Crown
Mouman Baradaaji - Offender
Representation: Mr Cramer for Crown
Mr Soukie for Offender
File Number(s): 2018/382450

sentence

  1. Mr Mouman Baradaaji is for sentence in relation to an offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to a Mr Vaddepalli while being in company with Abdullah Cheikho. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of five years is specified. The offender was committed for trial from the Local Court on 25 October 2019. A plea of guilty was entered in this Court on 12 June 2020 at a pretrial mention, and it is agreed that a discount of 10% is appropriate to be given on account of that plea of guilty, and I apply that discount of 10%. Of course the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are important guides in the sentencing exercise.

FACTS

  1. The facts of the matter are agreed, and in summary are as follows. On Saturday, 1 September 2018 Mr Vaddepalli was on duty at the United Service Station at Wilberforce. He was accompanied by another employee, a female, Yagitha Nakka and they were rostered to close the service station at the end of business which was 10 o'clock at night. This offender and Mr Abdullah Cheikho and a number of other males had been during that day at a place called the Southern Chariot Stud Religious Site on the Putty Road at Colo, and had been there for a barbeque and an afternoon of four wheel driving.

  2. Mr Cheikho and this offender Mr Baradaaji were travelling together in Mr Cheikho's utility together with an unknown male. Three other males were travelling together in another utility, those being Mr Ibrahim, Mr Ibrahim-Kadir and a Mr Arnaout. Shortly before 10pm those various men left the religious site and travelled along Wilberforce Road towards Richmond. At about 10pm the two vehicles pulled into the United Service Station at Wilberforce, where Mr Vaddepalli had just turned off the pumps, set the shop alarm, and was in the process of locking the doors. Ms Nakka, his co-worker, was also with him, and she was intending to give him a lift home on her motorcycle as his motorcycle had apparently broken down.

  3. The two utilities pulled up in front of the diesel pumps and Mr Cheikho got out and approached Mr Vaddepalli. He said, "We want fuel. Can you please open the door?". Mr Vaddepalli replied saying,…

Continue reading R v Baradaaji

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Baradaaji [2020] NSWDC 685
Case
[2020] NSWDC 685
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Baradaaji, faced the Supreme Court in a case concerning a serious assault that resulted in grievous bodily harm. The incident took place in a public setting, and the victim suffered significant injuries. Baradaaji was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company, and the matter proceeded to trial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The defence argued for a lenient sentence, citing mitigating factors, while the prosecution urged a substantial term of imprisonment to reflect the severity of the harm caused.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company. The court had to weigh various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the degree of recklessness exhibited by the accused, and any mitigating circumstances. The prosecution highlighted the significant harm inflicted on the victim, while the defence presented arguments for a reduced sentence due to factors such as the accused's background and the absence of a prior criminal record. The court also needed to consider the principle of proportionality and ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the nature of the crime.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of the offence and the significant harm caused to the victim. It recognised the degree of recklessness involved in Baradaaji's actions, noting that the assault occurred in a public setting, which heightened the risk to public safety. After considering the mitigating factors presented by the defence, the court found special circumstances that warranted a lesser sentence than might otherwise have been imposed. Consequently, Baradaaji was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and four months. The sentence was backdated to the date of the accused's arrest, ensuring that the term of imprisonment was 4 February 2019 to 3 June 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years 6 months with a NPP of 2 years 4 months (4/2/19-3/6/21). I find special circumstances.

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.