R v El Ali - [2013] VSC 172

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0165

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
REFAAT EL ALI	Accused

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v El Ali
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 172

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Plea of guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury and one charge of recklessly causing injury — Offender attacked victim whom he believed to have behaved inappropriately towards his wife — Victim sustained stab wounds to upper chest and abdomen together with lacerations to the arm — Chest wound would have been fatal if left untreated — Remorse — Good prospects of rehabilitation — Total effective sentence of four years and three months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms N Rogers SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G A Georgiou SC	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

HIS HONOUR:

Refaat El Ali, you have pleaded guilty before me to one charge of having, on 14 April 2012, caused serious injury recklessly, and one charge of having, on that same day, caused injury recklessly. It is now my task to sentence you for those offences.

I shall begin by saying something about your background. You are now aged 28, and were born and brought up in Lebanon. At some point in 2009, you were introduced to Sofia, who later became your wife. She was, at that time, visiting relatives in Lebanon.

Sofia was born in Australia. Her parents are Lebanese. She returned to Lebanon in 2010 to spend more time with you, and you became engaged. You came to this country to be with her in March 2011, and were married in May of that year. You have a young daughter who was born in December 2012.

You had worked as a tiler in Lebanon for some years. After your arrival, you used your experience in that field and your wife’s family contacts to gain employment in the construction industry. You then started your own tiling business in October 2011.

You speak some English, but your native language is Arabic.

I turn now to the circumstances surrounding your offending. These were outlined by the prosecutor in the course of her plea opening. The facts are essentially undisputed.

Your wife was at some stage involved in a collision which caused damage to the rear of her car. On the morning of Friday 13 April 2012, you telephoned the victim of the first and more serious charge against you, Mohammed Belok. You knew him to be a panel beater with his own business in Holt Parade, Thomastown. Your intention was to obtain a quote for the repair of the damage. You said that you could not bring the car in for inspection yourself because you were at work, but indicated…

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 Ali

Details

AGLC: R v El Ali [2013] VSC 172
Case: [2013] VSC 172
Decision Date: 12 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, El Ali, was charged with one count of recklessly causing serious injury and one count of recklessly causing injury. The charges arose after the respondent attacked the victim, who he believed had behaved inappropriately towards his wife. The victim sustained stab wounds to the upper chest and abdomen, along with lacerations to the arm. The victim's chest wound would have been fatal if left untreated. El Ali pleaded guilty to both charges. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the level of violence involved, and the extent of the victim's injuries. It also took into account the respondent's remorse, his prospects for rehabilitation, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the respondent's actions were driven by a sudden loss of self-control, but noted that the use of a knife and the severity of the injuries caused warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court further determined that the respondent had shown genuine remorse and had good prospects of rehabilitation.

El Ali was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of four years and three months, with a non-parole period of two years. The court considered this sentence to be appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and the need to send a message that such violent behaviour would not be tolerated. The respondent was ordered to serve a non-parole period of two years before becoming eligible for release on parole.

Orders