R v Gogani

Case [2013] NSWDC 280


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gogani [2013] NSWDC 280
Hearing dates:26/07/2013; 09/08/2013
Decision date: 09 August 2013
Before: S Norrish QC
Decision:

Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 4 years and 9 months.

Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Sentence after trial - conspiracy to break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, larceny - lack of contrition - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26
Jimmey v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Callaghan (2006) 160 A Crim R 145
Pettersen v R [2013] NSWCCA 20
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49, (2011) 244 CLR 462
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown
Yashir Gogani - offender
Representation: Ms C Dobraszczyk - Crown
Mr Healy - offender
Director of Public Prosecutions
Phillip Ryan Solicitors - offender
File Number(s):2011/00287337

sentence

  1. HIS HONOUR: Yashar Gogani appears today for sentence in relation to two charges to which he pleaded not guilty at trial, but in respect of which he was found guilty by a jury in May this year. The first count alleges that he, between 27 January 2011 and 22 March 2011 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, conspired with Neil Pettersen, Terry Faumuina and other unknown persons to break and enter the premises of Perfume Network of Australia Pty Ltd situated at 142 James Ruse Drive, Rosehill and to commit a serious indictable offence therein, namely larceny, in circumstances of aggravation, namely in company with Neil Pettersen, Terry Faumuina and other unknown persons. The second count on the indictment alleged that he, on or about 20 March 2011 at Rosehill in the State of New South Wales did steal an Isuzu truck, registration BB58UH, the property of Jamil El Helwa.

  1. In relation to the conspiracy offence, this is an offence at common law and the maximum penalty is described by the Crown as being at large. I note at this early stage that I sentenced the co-accused, Mr Pettersen, last year, who appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal and the appropriate maximum penalty or, alternatively, the appropriate considerations to determining an appropriate penalty for that offence in the context of it being a common law offence, were discussed in that judgment. I adopt, obviously, that Court's reasoning, bearing in mind of course that it relates directly to the very matter for which I must sentence this prisoner. Count 2 in the indictment carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period for either count.

  1. Mr Pettersen, as I mentioned, had been sentenced…

Continue reading R v Gogani

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gogani [2013] NSWDC 280
Case
[2013] NSWDC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted on two counts: conspiracy to break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, and larceny. The matter came before the court for the purpose of sentencing following a trial in the Supreme Court. The central legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate length of the sentence and the non-parole period, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the appellant's lack of contrition, and any special circumstances.

The court noted that the appellant had no previous convictions and had expressed remorse, albeit belatedly. However, the court found that the appellant's lack of contrition throughout the investigation and trial process was a significant aggravating factor. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences, which involved breaking and entering and stealing from a residence, as well as the impact on the victim. The court determined that a substantial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the crimes and to deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar conduct.

The court ultimately sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months for the first count, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months, and a term of 1 year and 6 months for the second count, to run concurrently. The court's decision emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that appropriately reflects the gravity of the offences and the appellant's conduct.

ORDERS:
Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 4 years and 9 months.
Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 4 years and 9 months.

Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months.

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.