R v El-Ahmad - [2004] VSCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 20 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
BELAL EL-AHMAD

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and EAMES, JJ.A. and SMITH, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24-25 February 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 May 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 93

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Murder – Contract killing – Vigilante motive – Plea of guilty – Assistance to authorities – Parity – Applicant aged 25 at time of murder – Sentence of 20 years with non-parole period of 15 years not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr J. McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

I agree with Eames, J.A., for the reasons he has stated, that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

EAMES, J.A.:

The applicant pleaded guilty to murder on 22 November 2001 which was the day on which the joint trial for murder of the applicant, Donna Marie Parsons and Andrew Franz Stocker was due to commence.

The applicant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years being fixed. Upon their conviction by verdict of the jury Stocker was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years and Donna Parsons was sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence on two grounds. First, that the sentence was manifestly excessive and secondly, as to disparity between the sentence imposed on him and that imposed on the co-offenders Donna Parsons and Andrew Stocker.

The circumstances of the killing and of the roles of Parsons and Stocker are dealt with in detail in the judgment of the Court concerning the applications for leave to appeal they each brought[1]. When sentencing the applicant the sentencing judge did not have the benefit of the evidence which was to be called at the trial but no complaint was made before us that the findings of fact made by his Honour for sentencing purposes were not open to him.
[1]See R. v. Parsons and Stocker [2004] VSCA 92

The victim, Paul Parsons, was married to the co-accused, Donna Parsons, at the time of his death. During 2000 the applicant had commenced working with

Donna Parsons at the Altona Safeway Supermarket. The applicant had informed Donna Parsons of his great dislike of men who harmed women or children and she played upon his hostility in that regard by telling him that her husband had been abusing her and her two children. Parsons told the applicant that she wanted to have her husband killed and said that her husband had an insurance policy on his life from which proceeds she could pay someone to kill him. The learned sentencing judge found that the applicant agreed to kill Paul Parsons, both because of his obsession about violent men harming their family and also because he was interested…

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 El-Ahmad

Details

AGLC: R v El-Ahmad [2004] VSCA 93
Case: [2004] VSCA 93
Decision Date: 26 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v El-Ahmad, the appellant stood convicted of the murder of a man, which was carried out under contract and motivated by a vigilante-like justification. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. El-Ahmad, who was 25 years old at the time of the offence, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of murder. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the appellant's level of cooperation with the authorities.

The primary legal issue before the court was to establish a sentence that would appropriately balance the gravity of the offence with the mitigating factors, including the appellant's early guilty plea and his cooperation with the authorities. The court also considered the principle of parity, which required the sentence to be proportionate to sentences handed down in similar cases. The court had to evaluate the appellant's age at the time of the offence, the motive behind the killing, and the non-parole period that would ensure public safety while also considering the prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentence of 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years was not manifestly excessive. It took into account the appellant's guilty plea and his assistance to the authorities, which included providing information that led to the arrest of others involved in the crime. The court also noted the appellant's age at the time of the offence and the vigilante-like motive, which, while not justifying the murder, did provide some context for his actions. The court was satisfied that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crime while also considering the mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court confirmed the sentence of 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years, reflecting the court's assessment of the appropriate punishment for the appellant's crime, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

Orders