R v Faraj - [2020] NSWDC 171

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Faraj [2020] NSWDC 171
Hearing dates: 5 September 2019, 20 September 2019, 21 October 2019, and 8 April 2020
Decision date: 08 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Imprisonment of 1 year 9 months – to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords: CRIME - SENTENCE - Robbery in company
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s97(1).
Cases Cited: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Sadar Faraj (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Walshe (ODPP)
Mr Pawar (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/395894
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Sader Faraj, on 5 September 2019, you first appeared in this Court for sentence in relation to one offence, namely, robbery in company.
Although the sentence hearing commenced on that date, it did not progress far for the reasons I set out in a judgment delivered that day. The sentence hearing was stood over for mention before me on 20 September 2019 to deal with the matters raised in that judgment.
On 20 September 2019, your sentence hearing received a further hearing date of 21 October 2019.
The matter did not proceed on that day because of outstanding s 23 issues. I again refer to my judgment delivered on that day.
Ultimately, the part-heard sentence hearing was listed for hearing on 8 April 2020, at the conclusion of which, I reserved my decision to today. This was because of implications surrounding the coronavirus pandemic which I referred to on 8 April 2020.
The offence for which you are to be sentenced, Mr Faraj, involves a contravention of s 97 (1) of the Crimes Act.
The maximum penalty for the offence is a term of imprisonment of 20 years. There is no standard non-parole period.
Although there is no standard non-parole period, there is a relevant guideline judgment of R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346.
The facts surrounding your offending conduct are, to a large extent, contained in a statement of agreed facts. However, two relevant additional facts were revealed by you in the course of your oral evidence on 8 April 2020.
As at 23 December 2018, you had just turned 18 years of age.
The victim of your offending conduct, Mr Grgich, was 28 years old and he had a cognitive impairment. The extent of his impairment has not been revealed to me.
At about 9:00pm on 23 December 2018, Mr Grgich’s parents dropped him off at the Liverpool Westfield shopping centre. He stayed there for about half an hour and then he walked to a nearby park where he sat on a bench and was looking at his mobile phone.
As Mr Grgich was looking at that phone, he was approached by a group of eight males, one of whom was you.
In the course of your cross-examination in the sentencing hearing, you admitted to being aware, or at least thinking, that Mr Grgich had some form of disability.…

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 Faraj

Details

AGLC: R v Faraj [2020] NSWDC 171
Case: [2020] NSWDC 171
Decision Date: 08 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Faraj involved the defendant, Faraj, who was charged with robbery in company. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant, accompanied by two others, robbed a convenience store at knifepoint, causing fear and distress to the employees and customers present. The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's background. The court considered the defendant's guilty plea, his lack of a criminal record, and the impact of the offence on the victims. The court also took into account the defendant's remorse and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court held that the offence was serious, as it involved violence and the use of a weapon, and caused fear and distress to the victims. However, the court also noted that the defendant had shown remorse and had no prior criminal record. The court further considered the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the need to deter future offending. The court determined that an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was appropriate, as it would provide the defendant with an opportunity to address the underlying causes of his offending behaviour and reduce the risk of reoffending. The court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for a term of 1 year and 9 months, to be served by way of an ICO.

The court made orders that the defendant be imprisoned for 1 year and 9 months, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. The defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and a victim surcharge of $150. The defendant was further ordered to participate in a rehabilitation program and to attend counselling sessions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Imprisonment of 1 year 9 months – to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Faraj [2020] NSWDC 171
Hearing dates:	5 September 2019, 20 September 2019, 21 October 2019, and 8 April 2020
Decision date:	08 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment of 1 year 9 months – to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - Robbery in company
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s97(1).
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Sadar Faraj (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Walshe (ODPP) Mr Pawar (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2018/395894
Publication restriction:	Nil