Legal Research
Cases
R v Doudar

R v Doudar

Case [2020] NSWSC 1262 17 September 2020

Accessory After the Fact

Sentencing

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Doudar [2020] NSWSC 1262
Hearing dates: 9 September 2020
Decision date: 17 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – accessory after the fact to murder – offender helped concealed getaway vehicle following public execution – moderate objective seriousness – no real subjective case
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 25D(4)(a) – facts and evidence of accessory after charge “substantially the same” as original murder charge

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 316(1), 349(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 25B, 25D
Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Doudar v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (unrep, Supreme Court NSW, 17 April 2020)
Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298; [1999] NSWLEC 280
R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254
R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 666
R v McCloskey (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1087
R v Stanford, Marcus [2016] NSWSC 1174

Texts Cited:
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 11 October 2017
NSW Law Reform Commission, Encouraging Appropriate Early Guilty Pleas (Report No 141, December 2014)
Oxford English Dictionary

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Ahmad Doudar
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Lungo (Crown)
Mr G Brady SC with Mr P Lange (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
One Group Legal

File Number(s): 2018/254011

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mr Ahmad Doudar is to be sentenced in relation to the murder of Mahmoud Hawi at Rockdale on 15 February 2018. Mr Doudar has pleaded guilty to the offence of being an accessory after the fact to that murder. Such an offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. [1]
1. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 349(1)

Facts

The following account of the offence is drawn from a Statement of Agreed Facts.
Mahmoud (“Mick”) Hawi came out of the Fitness First gym in West Botany Street, Rockdale shortly after midday on 15 February 2018. He got into his Mercedes Benz AMG 4WD which was parked just outside the entrance. A man dressed in black and wearing a black balaclava approached the driver’s side window and shot Mr Hawi multiple times in the head and upper body with a pistol.
A number of bullets hit the front glass windows and doors of the gym. There were patrons of the gym and members of the public in the immediate vicinity.
First aid was provided by members of the public before police and ambulance officers arrived. Mr Hawi was taken to St George Hospital. Tragically, it was found that he had suffered a non-survivable penetrating brain injury and he died after life support was withdrawn.
The person who shot Mr Hawi was Yusuf Nazlioglu, a close friend of Mr Doudar. Nazlioglu used to be friendly with Mr Hawi but…

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 Doudar

Details

AGLC: R v Doudar [2020] NSWSC 1262
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1262
Decision Date: 17 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder. The facts were that the respondent drove a getaway vehicle following the public execution of a murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing principles applicable to an accessory after the fact to murder could be applied to the respondent's situation. The court also had to consider whether the statutory interpretation of "facts and evidence of accessory after charge substantially the same" as the original murder charge was applicable in this instance.

The court considered that the statutory interpretation applied to the respondent's situation. The court held that the statutory interpretation applied to the respondent's situation and that the objective seriousness of the offence was moderate. The court also found that there was no real subjective case against the respondent. The court held that the statutory interpretation of "facts and evidence of accessory after charge substantially the same" as the original murder charge was applicable in this instance. The court found that the statutory interpretation applied to the respondent's situation and that the objective seriousness of the offence was moderate. The court held that the statutory interpretation of "facts and evidence of accessory after charge substantially the same" as the original murder charge was applicable in this instance.

The court sentenced the respondent to a moderate custodial sentence. The court found that the statutory interpretation applied to the respondent's situation and that the objective seriousness of the offence was moderate. The court held that the statutory interpretation of "facts and evidence of accessory after charge substantially the same" as the original murder charge was applicable in this instance. The court found that the statutory interpretation applied to the respondent's situation and that the objective seriousness of the offence was moderate. The court held that the statutory interpretation of "facts and evidence of accessory after charge substantially the same" as the original murder charge was applicable in this instance. The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a moderate custodial sentence.

Orders