Legal Research
Cases
R v Droudis (No 16)

R v Droudis (No 16)

Case [2017] NSWSC 20 1 February 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Droudis (No. 16) [2017] NSWSC 20
Hearing dates: 30 November 2016
Date of orders: 01 February 2017
Decision date: 01 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
The Offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 44 years, comprising a non-parole period of 33 years commencing on 22 December 2014 and expiring on 21 December 2047 with a balance of term of 11 years commencing on 22 December 2047 and expiring on 21 December 2058.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence after trial - murder - Offender in relationship with Man Haron Monis - Offender murders former wife of Monis - murder planned by Monis and carried out by Offender - victim attacked in stairwell of apartment block and stabbed 18 times before being set on fire by Offender - motive to secure custody of Monis’ two sons and for Offender and Monis to live as a family with their respective children - highly unusual and longstanding relationship between the Offender and Monis - very substantial objective gravity of offence - consideration of prospects of rehabilitation, specific deterrence and future dangerousness - whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed in accordance with s.61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - relevance on sentence of Monis’ role and the nature of the relationship between the Offender and Monis - not demonstrated to criminal standard that life sentence should be imposed - very lengthy determinate sentence passed - sentence of imprisonment for 44 years - non-parole period of 33 years with balance of term of 11 years
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
Currie v R [2013] NSWCCA 267
Efthimiadis v R (No. 2) [2016] NSWCCA 9
Heath v R [2016] NSWCCA 24
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; 164 A Crim 126
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Ng v R [2011] NSWCCA 227; 214 A Crim R 191
O’Neil-Shaw v R [2010] NSWCCA 42
Paxton v R [2011] NSWCCA 242; 219 A Crim R 104
R v Droudis (No. 14) [2016] NSWSC 1550
R v Droudis (No. 15) [2016] NSWSC 1782
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; 50 NSWLR 409
R v Lewis [2001] NSWCCA 448
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; 59 NSWLR 557
R v Potier [2004] NSWCCA 136
R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432
Ta’ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 91 ALJR 131
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Amirah Droudis (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Tedeschi QC; Mr DT Scully (Crown)
Mr MJ Ierace SC; Mr RJ Wilson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/345405

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 Droudis (No 16)

Details

AGLC: R v Droudis (No 16) [2017] NSWSC 20
Case: [2017] NSWSC 20
Decision Date: 01 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Droudis (No 16), the offender, who had a highly unusual and longstanding relationship with Man Haron Monis, murdered Monis’ former wife in a premeditated attack. The victim was attacked in the stairwell of an apartment block, stabbed eighteen times, and then set on fire by the offender. The motive for the crime was to secure custody of Monis’ two sons and for the offender and Monis to live as a family with their respective children. The offender was convicted of murder and the matter came before the court for sentencing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed in accordance with section 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the relevance of Monis’ role and the nature of the relationship between the offender and Monis on the sentence. The court had to consider the objective gravity of the offence, the prospects of rehabilitation, specific deterrence, and future dangerousness. The court found that the relationship between the offender and Monis was not such that it should be considered in imposing a life sentence. The court also found that it was not demonstrated to the criminal standard that a life sentence should be imposed.

The court considered the objective gravity of the offence to be very substantial due to the premeditated nature of the crime, the brutality of the attack, and the motive behind it. However, the court also took into account the prospects of rehabilitation, specific deterrence, and future dangerousness. The court found that the offender had shown some remorse and had a low risk of reoffending. The court also found that the offender’s relationship with Monis was not such that it should be considered in imposing a life sentence. The court ultimately decided to impose a lengthy determinate sentence of imprisonment for 44 years, with a non-parole period of 33 years and the balance of the term being 11 years.

Orders