R v Galas - [2006] VSC 161

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1485 of 2004

THE QUEEN

CRAIG TARAS GALAS
ISMAIL MUHAIDAT
STEVEN MIKHAEL

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 April, 2-6, 9-13, 16 May 2005, 5 December 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 May 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Galas & Ors (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 161

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder and manslaughter – Other offences arising from planned burglary and armed robbery leading to shooting of occupant – separate cultivation of cannabis offences – terms of 21 years 7 months with non-parole period of 16 years, 9 years 1 month with non-parole period of 5 years, and 9 years with non-parole period of 6 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen S.C. with Mr T. Walsh	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Galas	Mr B. Lindner	Clarebrough Pica
For the Accused Muhaidat	Mr J. Kaufman	C Marshall & Associates
For the Accused Mikhael	Mr C. Dane Q.C.	Balot Reilly

HIS HONOUR:

Craig Galas, Ismail Muhaidat and Steven Mikhael, you have each been found guilty by a jury of three offences arising out of the lead up to the killing of, and the killing of, Robert D’Amico on 2 September 2003 at Tullamarine. As to you, Craig Galas, the main guilty verdict was that of the murder of Robert D’Amico. As to each of Ismail Muhaidat and Steven Mikhael, the main guilty verdict was as to manslaughter. As to all three, the jury also returned guilty verdicts on one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of attempted armed robbery. All three of you have each also pleaded guilty to one or more other offences arising out of the cultivation of cannabis plants in 2003. As to Craig Galas, the other charges are of cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis and theft of electricity between 27 October 2003 and 12 November 2003. As to Ismail Muhaidat, the other charges are of cultivation of cannabis and theft of electricity between 3 and 12 November 2003. As to Steven Mikhael, the only other charge is of cultivation of cannabis on 19 November 2003.

On 2 September 2003, Robert D’Amico was shot dead at the house in Tullamarine where he was living. At that house, Robert D’Amico had been illegally cultivating cannabis plants. The cultivation of cannabis plants was an activity in which each of you had taken a keen interest at that time. At least one of you had learned something of Robert D’Amico’s cannabis crop. It seemed to you that a raid on Robert D’Amico’s house might present a way of getting, in an easy way, some cannabis and some money. Accordingly, a plan was devised to do a run-through there. A run-through is a shorthand way of describing a combined aggravated burglary of the house and armed robbery of the occupants. The three of you and another man planned…

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 Galas

Details

AGLC: R v Galas [2006] VSC 161
Case: [2006] VSC 161
Decision Date: 1 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Galas, the defendant was involved in a planned burglary and armed robbery that tragically resulted in the shooting of the occupant. The defendant was also involved in separate cannabis cultivation offences. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court. The key issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's multiple criminal offences. This included the calculation of concurrent and cumulative sentences for murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, and cannabis cultivation.

The court considered the severity of the offences and the defendant's role in each. The defendant was found guilty of murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, and separate cannabis cultivation offences. The court applied the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, taking into account the principle of totality to avoid excessive punishment. The court also considered the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the defendant's background and personal circumstances. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was 21 years and 7 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years for the murder and manslaughter, 9 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 5 years for the armed robbery, and 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years for the cannabis cultivation offences, all sentences to run concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to serve 21 years and 7 months in prison for the murder and manslaughter, with a non-parole period of 16 years. Additionally, the defendant was sentenced to 9 years and 1 month in prison for the armed robbery, with a non-parole period of 5 years, and 9 years in prison for the cannabis cultivation offences, with a non-parole period of 6 years. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

Orders