R v Elabdallah
[2013] NSWDC 260
•30 April 2013
District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Elabdallah [2013] NSWDC 260 Hearing dates: 26 April 2013 Decision date: 30 April 2013 Before: Sides QC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of an aggregate term of imprisonment of nine and half years with a six year non parole period
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form1 - Aggravated armed robbery - Conspiring to commit an aggravated armed robbery - Aggravated kidnapping - Multiple aggravated armed robberies of licences premises - Parity - Consideration of mental health issues - Aggregate sentence - Hardship to third parties Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Mouhamed ElabdallahRepresentation: Mr G Wendler - The offender
The Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Saba Lawyers - The offender
File Number(s): 2011/273549
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: Mouhamed Elabdallah appears for sentence consequent upon his adhering to guilty pleas to the following four offences:
Sequence 1: aggravated armed robbery upon the Cedars Tavern at Emerton on 14 June 2011;
Sequence 3: conspiring between 16 July and 25 August 2011 to commit an aggravated armed robbery on the Crown Hotel Revesby;
Sequence 4: aggravated armed robbery on the Brewhouse at Lalor Park on 23 September 2010; and
Sequence 5: aggravated armed robbery upon the El Toro Hotel, Warwick Farm on 5 June 2011.
Aggravated armed robbery has a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. Conspiracy has no maximum penalty and no standard nonparole period but it is relevant to consider the maximum penalty for the offence the subject of the conspiracy. None of the offences to which he pleaded guilty can be dealt with summarily.
When considering his criminality in connection with sequence 4, the Court took into account an offence of aggravated kidnapping on a Form 1 schedule and in connection with sequence 5 two aggravated kidnapping offences on a Form 1 schedule. Aggravated kidnapping, when dealt with on indictment, has a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment.
The Court reduced the sentences by about twenty-five per cent to reflect the utility of his guilty pleas.
The guilty pleas relieved the victims of the anxiety of awaiting a trial and giving evidence in that trial. The material before the Court satisfies the Court that the conditions referred in subpara 21A(3)(i) are met and there is evidence that the Offender is remorseful. Although that remorse is belated, the Court is of the view it is appropriate to and has extended leniency to reflect that remorse.
The co-offender Milad Salama was, at the time of the offences, employed as a security guard and had been employed in that role in excess of a decade. The facts assert that he was working for a particular security firm in 2011 and that he worked at the Brewhouse Hotel between May and September that year five to six nights a week. That is probably a misprint and it is probably meant to refer to the year 2010 rather than 2011. Part of his duty included remaining at the premises after it was closed to the public and whilst staff counted money from the tills and poker machines before placing it into a safe. On occasions he would assist staff to clear money from the poker machines. The Offender knew the co-offender Salama and the other co-offender Stefano Marconi.
On 7 September 2010 the co-offender Salama sent a text message to the Offender containing the address of the Brewhouse Hotel. In the early hours of 22 September 2010 the Offender met with the co-offender Salama and hatched plans to commit an armed robbery at the Brewhouse Hotel early the following morning. These plans included that the offence would take place whilst the co-offender Salama was working as a security guard. He provided the Offender with information about the Brewhouse that he had obtained in the course of his employment.
The Offender and the co-offender Marconi met on the evening of 22 September at the co-offender's house. They then travelled to the Brewhouse Hotel together. The manager of that hotel was preparing to close at around 1.50am. All patrons had left, leaving only the manager and the co-offender Salama who was still working at a security guard. After the hotel was locked, the co-offender Salama stood next to the door and the manager Mr Pastor commenced to get the cash from the poker machines and put it in pencil cases. Shortly after 2am, the Offender and the co-offender Marconi approached the rear of the hotel. At the time they had their faces covered with balaclavas. The Offender had a small axe, which he used to break a glass panel next to the door lock. He and the co-offender Marconi then entered the hotel, one of them being armed with a handgun. They grabbed hold of the co-offender Salama, the handgun was pointed to his back and one of the offenders demanded to know where the manager was. The co-offender Marconi escorted the two offenders to the poker machine area where he pushed the co-offender Salama to the ground.
The Offender who had the axe approached the manager Mr Pastor and told him to put everything on the floor and get on his knees. The victim knelt on the floor and put his keys on the floor next to him. The Offender demanded the code to the safe but was told it was open. He then told Mr Pastor to stand up. Mr Pastor said: "Take whatever you want, just don't hurt us".
The two offenders ordered Mr Salama and Mr Pastor to a bench and ordered them to kneel. They were told not to look at the offenders. They tied the hands and legs of both Mr Pastor and the co-offender Salama. They removed a mobile phone, some cigarettes and key from the pocket of the co-offender Salama. The co-offender Marconi remained with the other two whilst the Offender went into the office and collected the money. When he returned he demanded the password to the second safe, but Mr Pastor told him it could not be opened. When he demanded the password for the till Mr Pastor told him what the password was, the Offender then opened the till and removed some cash from it.
In all the two perpetrators left the premises with $58,000 in cash. They had been inside the premises for about twelve minutes.
The tying up of the arms and feet of Mr Pastor gives rise to the kidnap on the Form 1 schedule. He was able to free his legs and then cut the ties to Mr Salama who then cut the ties to Mr Pastor's hands. Triple-0 was contacted. The co-offender Salama provided a statement to the police falsely claiming he was a victim of the offence.
The aggravated armed robbery on the Brewhouse Hotel is reflected in sequence 4.
Sequence 5 involved the offence at the El Toro Hotel on 5 June 2011. The co-offender Salama had previously worked as a security guard in this hotel. On 18 May 2011 the Offender made a number of phone calls to the phone number of the co-offender Salama. At about 6.55am on 5 June 2011 the Offender entered the beer garden of the El Toro Hotel in company with his co-offender Mousa Houri. At the time they were both wearing black balaclavas. They walked up a set of stairs out of the beer garden and out of view of the CCTV camera system. The hotel was closed at the time. At about 7.18am the manager Nina Makisi arrived for work and walked into the beer garden. As she was about to open the door into the bistro the two offenders ran down the stairs to the beer garden and approached her from behind. When she turned around she saw they each had a firearm. One of them demanded that she opened the door and she did as requested. One of them said that she was not going to be hurt, they just wanted the money. She showed them where the office was located and started to open one of the safes. It had a time delay lock of ten minutes on it. She indicated that the lock to the second safe was kept in the first safe. Whilst they were waiting for safe to be opened, another employee Aliz Shrestha arrived. One of the offenders pointed the firearm at Mr Shrestha's head and directed him away from the office. After he lay on the floor, his ankles and hands were secured with duct tape. After the first safe was opened, the offenders removed some bags of coins. Ms Makisi then opened the second safe and the offenders removed cash from it and put into a backpack. One of the offenders used a twoway radio and said: "bring the car". After Ms Makisi lay on the ground, duct tape was used to tie her hands together as well as to tape her legs together.
The offenders left the hotel at 7.35am taking with them $21,132 in cash. The two victims freed themselves from the duct tape. The detaining of them gives rise to the two matters on the Form 1 schedule.
Police arrived shortly afterwards and seized a number of exhibits including the duct tape used to tie up the victims. Subsequent DNA analysis of material lifted from the duct tape was matched with the Offender's DNA profile.
The next offence in time is reflected in sequence 1. It was committed at the Cedars Tavern at Emerton on 14 June. This hotel is located in Popondetta Road at Emerton. The co-offender Salama had been employed at this premises as a security guard during June 2011. During June of that year he provided the Offender and the co-offender Mousa Houri with information about the tavern that he had obtained during the course of his employment. Over the long weekend, which was 10 to 13 June, there were several telephone communications between the Offender and the co-offender Mousa Houri. During these they arranged to meet.
At about 12.30pm on 13 June the Offender sent a text message to the co-offender Mousa Houri stating: "Just get shit together, I'm in". The Offender and the co-offender Mousa Houri met at Haymarket later that afternoon that is on 13 June.
Police surveillance saw the co-offender Essa Houri driving a Toyota Yaris motor vehicle owned by an associate of his by the name of Mohamad Aboulhaf. He went to a service station at Wiley Park and purchased a jerry can and some fuel.
At about 2.30am, during a telephone conversation with the co-offender Mousa Houri, the Offender agreed to meet the co-offenders Mousa and Essa Houri at their home in Roselands.
At about 4am on 14 June the only person in the Cedars Hotel was the manager, the victim of the offence. A security guard had left the premises about fifteen minutes earlier. The victim went into the office, locked the door and began counting $50,000 of takings that had previously been collected from various parts of the premises. The proceeds for the four to five previous nights were held in a drop safe that the victim could not access.
At around 4am the Offender and his co-offender Essa Houri approached the tavern and used a hammer to smash a panelling in one of the glass doors. They gained entry to the tavern. At the time they were wearing balaclavas that concealed their faces and each of them carried a handgun. When they knocked on the victim's office he saw them pointing the firearm through the window and hid in a nearby toilet. One of the offenders kicked the door to the office open and the pair stole $50,000 cash before fleeing in a silver-coloured car.
The Yaris previously referred to was set alight at about 4.30am the same morning in Kilto Crescent at Glendenning. Fire fighters extinguished the fire. Police located a jerry can on the front seat of the burnt-out car, which was similar to the one purchased by the co-offender Houri earlier that night. The car was set alight about 500 metres from the home of the co-offender Salama. The offenders travelled to his home and the proceeds were divided between them.
A motor vehicle registered in the name of the wife of the co-offender Salama dropped the co-offender Mousa Houri off at Blacktown Railway Station at 5.05am. Police followed him and he later attended university near Campbelltown that morning. The co-offender Aboulhaf reported the theft of his motor vehicle later that morning.
Over the ensuing days, surveillance revealed that the co-offender Salami and the Offender argued over how this offence had been executed. Some of the details of those conversations are set out on the facts, but it is not necessary to reproduce them in these remarks. However, the conversations reveal that the Offender had used his share of the proceeds of the robberies to fund the purchase of a 2009 model Hyundai Elantra, as well as furnishings and appliances for his apartment at Bankstown.
The final offence is the conspiracy offence, which is sequence 3. Between 16 July 2011 and 25 August 2011 police lawfully intercepted a number of telephone calls between the co-offender Marconi and the Offender. During these calls the two formed an agreement to commit an armed robbery using a dangerous weapon at the Crown Hotel in Revesby. The co-offender discussed with the Offender his intention of obtaining information about the trade of the hotel from a person associated with it. The pair agreed to provide the informant with an amount of money in return for the information. They outlined their plans that they would observe the hotel prior to the commission of the offence. During their conversations they referred to the hotel as a job site and the robbery offences as contracts. Details of the evidence gathered during the surveillance are set out in the facts on pages 8 to 12. The Court has taken that evidence into account but it is not necessary to set that detail out in these remarks. The Court notes, however, that they did meet outside the hotel at about 10.30pm on 3 August 2011.
Police arrested the Offender at 12.10am on Thursday 25 August at Beverly Hills. At the time he was driving the Elantra motor vehicle previously referred to. After he was taken to the Hurstville Police Station police interviewed him. During the interview the Offender told the police that he worked as a security guard and provided information about where he was employed and the sort of work he did in that role. He also acknowledged the use of a particular Vodafone mobile phone number and told the police that he had moved to Bankstown about four weeks earlier. He told the police that the Elantra he was driving when they arrested him had been purchased using cash at Pickles Auction and it cost him $13,000. He claimed he obtained that money from his employment. He set out the details of his income, which he said varied. He told the police he used cash to buy the furnishings for the place that he was living in at Bankstown. He acknowledged knowing the cooffenders Salama, Marconi and Mousa and Essa Houri. He said he did not own a security company but kept his eye out for the opportunity to earn a commission from security contracts. He acknowledged that he had met the co-offender Marconi near the Crown Hotel sometime previously. He declined to comment when questioned directly about the aggravated armed robberies.
The Offender turned twenty-nine last December. He is the second youngest of a family of seven children. Whilst there was no evidence that he had the disadvantage of a dysfunctional upbringing, there is evidence of some family discord because of his father's gambling problems. It seems that there was limited discipline in the home because his mother spent a lot of time working and his father spent a lot of time gambling.
The Offender has been married for about five years. He has twins who are about two years old and another child about a year younger.
After leaving school, he worked teaching martial arts for a number of years. During this time he undertook a lot of voluntary work in that field, including at schools. After a falling-out with his master, he started working as a security guard.
He started using cocaine in around 2010 because it helped bulk him up and gave him more confidence and bravado. He is prepared to undertake programs to address its usage, but has not been able to do so thus far because he has been on remand.
There is evidence that he started to develop a gambling problem when he was about twenty. As noted, his father had a gambling problem and apparently one of his brothers also has a gambling problem. The evidence suggests that he has some insight into his problem and is prepared to address it in the future.
He has undertaken some vocational courses in goal and has not breached prison discipline.
The Court considered each offence separately.
Dr Jacmon is of the opinion that the Offender has a combination of three problems that affected his state of mind at the time of the offences and/or when he decided to become involved in offences of this type. Those three problems were: pathological gambling; anxiety; and steroid use. He set out the symptoms one would expect in a person with each of these problems at p 1 under the heading "Conclusions" within exhibit 1. It is not necessary to set the detail of those symptoms out in these remarks.
The Court has considerable reservations about this report because Dr Jacmon never met the Offender before preparing the report or giving evidence. He only spoke to the Offender on the phone for about an hour and relied entirely upon what the Offender told him during that conversation when reaching his conclusions.
Whilst the Court accepts the Offender had a gambling problem, his wife's evidence raises a real doubt about the level of the Offender's gambling problem. She did not assert that there are any substantial financial problems and there was no suggestion in the evidence of either the Offender or his wife that they had trouble putting food on the table. It is possible that the Offender conveyed to Dr Jacmon that his gambling caused him anxiety about being able to feed his wife and children, however, in all the circumstances, the Court cannot exclude the possibility that Dr Jacmon concluded that the Offender's level of gambling was higher than was the case.
In relation to the combination of the three problems he identified Dr Jacmon opined that the Offender's:
"actions which led to offending indicated markedly diminished capacity for judgment because there appeared to be little thought given to the consequences and the need to curb impulsivity.
The Court does not accept this opinion because:
1.it cannot exclude the possibility that his conclusion about the level of the Offender's gambling problem does not reflect the reality in that regard;
2.although during his evidence the Offender said he told Dr Jacmon about the conversations he had with his co-offender Salama that led to his involvement in the offences, Dr Jacmon made no mention to them either in his report - exhibit 1 - or his evidence;
3.the Offender's account about those conversations is at odds with Dr Jacmon's opinion. The Offender said that, before becoming involved in any of the offences, his co-offender Salama spoke to him about three to four times saying things like: it would be easy; there was so much money; and no-one would get hurt. He also said that the co-offender Salama was aware of his gambling and was constantly at him and he, the Offender, needed money. He went on to say that he trusted the guy and regarded the offending suggested by his co-offender Salama as his best option for him and his family. He added that he always knew that what he was doing was not right and was against his own beliefs. In summary, according to the Offender's account, the co-offender Salama dangled a pot of gold in front of him and, having weighed up his options, he succumbed to the temptation as he saw it as an easy way out. Further, in a process of illogical reasoning, he saw it as a means of becoming "someone" in his family's eyes. Later in his evidence the Offender said he always knew people - a reference to the victims - were scared, but that was not in his mind. He also said that he saw each offence as the last and could pull out if he wished but claimed he needed the money. In the Court's view these parts of the Offender's evidence are inconsistent with the evidence of Dr Jacmon to the effect that, having decided to be involved, the Offender "had to" commit the offences, meaning the Offender has no option to withdraw. In this context the Court notes that during a telephone conversation with his co-offender Marconi on 28 July 2011 that forms part of the evidence in support of the conspiracy offence and which is after the three robberies the Offender said:
"Well I'm going to do that regardless man, 'cause at the end of the day, I want the contract but, I don't want it bad enough that one of us gets hurt. .... I really look at shit as much as I can. it's just fuck man, like I can't get one of us in trouble." [my emphasis];
4.in the Court's view the Offender's evidence is inconsistent with his decision-making being impulsive and lacking in consideration of the consequences;
5.the Offender wore a disguise when he committed the three actual robberies. During his evidence Dr Jacmon sought to explain this by saying words to the effect that, pretty much, all criminals know they have to avoid capture. In the Court's view this indicates that he was approaching the matter in a stereotypical way rather than a consideration of the circumstances of the individual case. For that reason the Court did not accept his explanation;
6.on a number of occasions in connection with the Offender's original decision to become involved in these offences, which in his view was an impulsive decision, Dr Jacmon said that the Offender thought he was smart enough to get away with it. This conveys to the Court that the Offender thought about the consequences, at least for himself, but decided to go ahead with the offences, which is not consistent with what is connoted by the term "impulsive";
7.there was a significant temporal gap between the offence in September 2010 and the next offence on 5 June 2011. Another nine days passed before the next offence on 14 June. The evidence discloses that planning for that offence started as early as 11 June. Further, the conspiracy spanned well over a month and only ended because of the Offender's arrest. Dr Jacmon's evidence about the Offender having no option but to continue his involvement once he decided to become involved does not sit comfortably with these temporal gaps, especially the period of almost nine months between the first and second offences;
In the Court's view it is clear on the evidence, including the Offender's evidence, that the Offender considered the options when the Offender Salama dangled the pot of gold before him during a number of conversations and appreciating the risks for himself and potential victims, decided to become involved, taking the risk that he would be arrested. The Court is also of the view that, after each offence and before involvement in the next, he went through a similar exercise. The Court is satisfied of those matters beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, whilst he was partly motivated by a desire to obtain money to continue gambling, he also wanted money for his family and to live extravagantly so he could take time off his paid employment and eat out all the time. To the extent that his gambling motivated his offending, that explains but does not excuse his conduct.
It is clear from the Offender's account that he chose to obtain funds by committing offences of this type, including the use of firearms, as a means of obtaining money and viewed it as a business. The Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, but for the intervention of the police, the conspiracy would have resulted in another actual aggravated armed robbery and there may have been even more. What he said to the co-offender Marconi on 28 July 2011 in the passage quoted above and during evidence indicates he was prepared to continue offending so long as he was not caught, he and the co-offenders were not hurt and victims were not physically hurt.
The circumstances are such that he was involved in serious organised criminal activity. Clearly the offences were premeditated and committed after some planning in which the Offender participated. His role was that of an actual perpetrator.
Obviously each offence was serious and involved a firearm that falls within the definition of dangerous weapon. On each of the three occasions where a robbery was actually committed, the Offender was in company and, it seems likely, that that was the case in connection with the one the subject of the conspiracy. On the first occasion only one offender had a firearm, described in exhibit A as a handgun, and there is no basis to conclude that the Offender carried it. However, on that occasion the Offender did have a small axe. On the next two occasions each of the perpetrators had a firearm, described as a handgun in connection with the offence at the Cedars Tavern, and a firearm at the El Toro Hotel.
Whilst no victims were tied up during the offence at the Cedars Tavern, victims were tied up in order to facilitate the execution of the offences at the Brewhouse Hotel and the El Toro Hotel. Although that is reflected in separate offences on the Form 1 schedules, the Court did not increase the aggregate sentence or the indicative sentence for sequences 4 and 5 to reflect the matters on the Form 1 schedule because it had taken the detention of the victims into account when assessing the level of criminality for sequences 4 and 5.
On each occasion inside information was used to facilitate the planning and execution of the offence and that was obviously part of the plan for the offence the subject of the conspiracy.
Apart from the occasions when victims were tied up, there was no manhandling of people during the commission of any of the offences and there is no evidence that any victim sustained any physical injury during any of the offences. There is no evidence about whether the firearms that were loaded, they certainly were not discharged. No threats were uttered, but obviously the use of firearms conveyed a significant threat. Obviously the victims would have been terrorised. Even though there are not victim impact statements, it is not uncommon for a victim of an offence such as these to suffer long-term emotional and/or psychological problems.
On each occasion significant amounts of money were stolen and the Court is satisfied this is why hotels were targeted. There is no evidence that any of the stolen money has been recovered.
The Offender has been in custody since his arrest. He has not breached any prison discipline rules and has done a number of vocational courses. He has positive plans for the future and has taken his religion more seriously. He has thought about the consequences of his offending behaviour. He has a work history and support in the community. If he successfully addresses his gambling problems his prospects of rehabilitation and not re-offending will be good. The Court accepts that he has acknowledged his gambling problem and he is receptive to professional help to address it.
Two co-offenders have been sentenced. On 12 December 2012 Judge Wells sentenced the co-offender Essa Houri to sixty-three months imprisonment with a non-parole period of forty-two months in connection with the offence committed with this Offender at the Cedars Tavern. Her Honour accumulated the sentence upon other sentences for three offences of a similar nature committed by the co-offender Essa Houri on two hotels and in which this Offender was not involved. The co-offender Essa Houri received a total sentence of seven years and three months with a non-parole period of five and a half years.
On 22 April 2013 Judge North sentenced the co-offender Salama to: three years with a twenty month non-parole period for the offence on the Brewhouse Hotel; twenty months imprisonment with fifteen months non-parole for being an accessory before the fact to the offence at the Cedars Tavern; and twenty months with twelve months non-parole for being an accessory after the fact to the offence committed at the Cedars Tavern. The Court notes that the matter has a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for the other two is twenty-five years imprisonment. His Honour accumulated the sentence in connection with the offence on the Brewhouse Hotel by six months, giving a total sentence of three and a half years and a total non-parole of twenty-six months.
So far as the evidence discloses the relevant similarities between the three offenders are as follows:
- discount for utility of their respective guilty pleas;
- none of them had any prior criminal history; and
- totality considerations.
So far as the evidence discloses the relevant differences between the three offenders are as follows:
- Age. This Offender is about fifteen years younger than the co-offender Salama and about nine and a half years older than the co-offender Essa Houri. In the latter's case, unlike in the case of the other two, his relative young age was relevant in terms of balancing, deterrence and retribution;
- criminality. Whilst there is no basis to distinguish between the criminality of this man and the co-offender Essa Houri in connection with the offence at the Cedars Tavern, it is clear that the co-offender Salama's criminality was less, even though it involved a significant breach of trust, and in terms of charging was dealt with in an entirely different fashion. In connection with the Brewhouse, notwithstanding the breach of trust on the part of the co-offender Salama, the Court is satisfied this Offender's criminality is greater;
- the co-offender Salama received a discount of 20% assistance to the authorities. In the case of the offence committed at the Brewhouse Hotel, his Honour indicated that but for the 45% discount [for the utility of the plea and assistance] the sentence would have been five and a half years and in the case of being an accessory before the fact to the offence at the Cedars Tavern four years, and in the case of the other offence three years. The Court notes that his Honour ordered that the sentences for the two offences at the Cedars Tavern be served concurrently;
- unlike the other two, the co-offender Essa Houri had the disadvantage of a dysfunctional upbringing, had suffered significant injuries in a motor vehicle accident and displayed a poor attitude in custody, suggesting his prospects of rehabilitation are not as good as the other two, and her Honour found a slight reduction in moral culpability because of mental health issues;
- unlike the co-offender Salama, the other two had substance abuse problems of some sort when they committed the offences.
Bearing in mind those similarities and differences, the Court applied the principle of parity as between this man and the other two when considering the offence at the Cedars Tavern and between this man and the co-offender Salama when considering the offence at the Brewhouse.
The Court has not made any formal reference to the Offender's record but it will be obvious from what it has already said that it has extended a discount or a leniency because of the absence of prior offences.
The Court notes that the Offender's eldest twin suffers from alopecia, the onset of which may have been triggered by the Offender's arrest and their subsequent separation. As a result she suffered significant hair loss and her mother shaved off the balance. She also suffered loss of eyebrows and eyelashes. Obviously this has been stressful for the child and her mother, as well as the Offender. Further, his wife and family have experienced financial difficulties whilst the Offender is in custody. However, these matters are not so exceptional that leniency on the discrete basis of hardship to third parties is called for. However, they are subjective features that the Court took into account.
The Court took into account for purposes of a sentence and a sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort. As the purposes of sentencing are well known, there is no need to discuss them in any detail.
In the Court view significant custodial sentences are called for in connection with each offence. The Court has concluded that it is appropriate to impose an aggregate sentence under s 53A and that sentence reflects a twenty-five percent discount, as does the indicative sentences.
In determining that sentence, that is the aggregate sentence, the Court considered totality and, in the cases of sequences 4 and 5, the matters on the respective Form 1 schedule. The Court will commence the sentence on the date of his arrest. Because of the absence of prior offences and the issue of totality the Court found special circumstances.
Pursuant to subpara 53A(2)(b) the indicative sentences are as follows: Sequence 3: forty-two months.
Sequence 1: sixty-six months.
Sequences 4 and 5: sixty-nine months. In connection with those two matters the indicative sentence reflects of course the matters on the Form 1 schedule that were taken into account in assessing the overall criminality of each offence.
Mouhamed Elabdallah, the Court convicts you of the four offences to which you pleaded guilty in the Local Court and, pursuant to s 53A imposes an aggregate term of imprisonment. It fixes an aggregate non-parole period of six years and an aggregate total term of nine and a half years to commence on 25 August 2011. The Court orders that your parole eligibility date is 24 August 2017.
I have sentenced you to a total of nine and a half years imprisonment with six years non-parole commencing when the police arrested you. This means you are eligible for release to parole on 24 August 2017. You should understand that release to parole on that date is not automatic. Some time before that date the State Parole Authority will hold a hearing and decide whether to release you on parole on that date or some later date. If you are released to parole you will be subject to stringent conditions. It is your job to both understand what those conditions are and to stick to them whilst you are on parole. If during the time that you are on parole you breach any condition the State Parole Authority will revoke your parole and you will have to go back to gaol to serve the balance of your sentence. Do you understand?
OFFENDER: Yes.
**********
Decision last updated: 28 January 2014
0
0
0