R v El Hajjar

Case [2021] NSWDC 116


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v El Hajjar [2021] NSWDC 116
Hearing dates: 11 March 2021
Decision date: 09 April 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For Orders see [84]

Catchwords:

One count of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; offence committed whilst offender in custody; principle of totality

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

AM v R [2012] NSWCCA 203

Banks v R [2018] NSWCCA 41

Beil v R [2015] NSWCCA 120

Dixon v R [2019] NSWCCA 85

El Masri v R [2014] NSWCCA 13

Hillier v DPP [2009] NSWCCA 312

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Kiernan v R [2016] NSWCCA 12

R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241

R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40

Touhifalou v R [2018] NSWCCA 283

Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ahmad El Hajjar (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Waldmann (Crown)
M Coroneos (Offender)

Solicitors:
H Kamib (Offender)
File Number(s): 19/311774
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of one count of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

  2. The offence occurred on 5 October 2019 whilst the offender was in custody at MRRC Silverwater, and he was serving a sentence of 9 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, from 21 April 2016, being an aggregate sentence in respect of offences including use of offensive weapon with intent to commit indictable offence, fire firearm in or near a public place, robbery while armed with dangerous weapon, possess unregistered and unauthorised pistol in a public place, together with several driving offences.

  3. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years imprisonment and there is a Standard Non-Parole Period of 7 years imprisonment.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 11 March 2021. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A and it included a Statement of Agreed Facts which referenced CCTV footage of the incident, which was played in court (Ex B). The following is a fair summary of those facts.

  2. The offender was 28 years of age at the time of the offence. There was a co‑accused, Hassan Ali, who was 25 years of age at the time. The victim was Hilal Merhi, who was 37 years of age at the time of the incident. All three men were inmates at MRRC Silverwater.

  3. On 4 October 2019, the victim was transferred to pod 10 at MRRC from another pod within the prison. He was placed in a room on the upper level of the pod and the offender was in the next door cell.

  4. On 5 October 2019 at around 2.13pm, the victim was sitting alone at a set of table and chairs in the general common area of pod 10. Shortly after the victim sat…

Continue reading R v El Hajjar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v El Hajjar [2021] NSWDC 116
Case
[2021] NSWDC 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, El Hajjar, who was charged with one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred while the defendant was in custody. The matter was heard in a higher court in Australia. The central issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, considering the principle of totality which requires a comprehensive assessment of all sentences a defendant is receiving concurrently and consecutively.

The court considered whether the sentence for the current offence should be aggregated with the sentence for another offence the defendant had previously been convicted of. This required balancing the principles of totality with the need for a just outcome. The court also needed to consider the specific circumstances of the offence, including the defendant's custodial status at the time, to determine an appropriate punishment. The court had to weigh these factors carefully to ensure that the sentence was both proportionate and just.

After reviewing the evidence and the submissions from both parties, the court decided that the defendant should receive a full-time custodial sentence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality principle, which meant that the sentence for the new offence had to be integrated with any existing sentences the defendant was serving. The court concluded that this approach was necessary to ensure a fair and balanced outcome, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case. The final orders were detailed in the judgment, specifying the exact nature of the custodial sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For Orders see [84]

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.