Legal Research
Cases
R v Hachem

R v Hachem

Case [2023] NSWSC 535 19 May 2023

Victim Impact Statements

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hachem [2023] NSWSC 535
Hearing dates: 13 December 2022, 14 April 2023
Date of orders: 19 May 2023
Decision date: 19 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1) The offender is sentenced for the murder of Samah Baker, taking into account the two offences of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception on the Form 1, to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 8 March 2019 and expiring on 7 March 2037 and a balance of term of 6 years expiring on 7 March 2043.
(2) Pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), it is directed that the offence of murder be recorded on the offender’s criminal record as a domestic violence offence.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Offender found guilty after trial – necessary to find facts consistent with verdict of jury – domestic violence offence – offender angered by victim’s relationship with another man – victim impact statements – no prior criminal history – location of victim’s body not disclosed – no mental health issues casually related to offending

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 11, 12
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(2)-(3), 22A, 30E, 32, 33, 34, 35, 44(2), 61,
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 192E
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Victims) Act 2018 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 25C

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 14; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Droudis v The Queen (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129
R v Edwards (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1815 HCA 54
R v JD [2018] NSWCCA 233
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999]

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
James Hachem (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Roberts SC and F Gray (Crown)
D McMahon (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Korn Tlais (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00076185

Judgment

In the early hours of 4 January 2019, the deceased, Samah Baker, was killed by James Hachem and he removed her body from the Parramatta area, where Ms Baker lived, by placing it in the boot of his mother’s car. The evidence did not establish how she died or where her body has been disposed of.
Ms Baker’s death was a tragedy, a very great human tragedy for her family, her friends and all involved in this sad matter. These remarks, however, must focus on the events of late December 2018 and early January 2019 and the circumstances in which they occurred as well as the offender’s circumstances. This is not to diminish the importance or value of Ms Baker’s…

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 Hachem

Details

AGLC: R v Hachem [2023] NSWSC 535
Case: [2023] NSWSC 535
Decision Date: 19 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hachem involved the defendant, Hachem, who was convicted of murder following a trial. The primary dispute was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Hachem after he was found guilty of killing his former partner. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the sentence to be imposed on Hachem, considering various factors, including the nature of the crime, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the impact on the victim's family. Hachem had no prior criminal history, and there were no mental health issues directly related to the offence. The location of the victim's body remained undisclosed.

The legal issues before the court included the principles and factors relevant to sentencing in a murder case, the impact of domestic violence, the absence of a prior criminal record, and the implications of victim impact statements. The court had to balance these factors in determining an appropriate sentence for Hachem. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in imposing the sentence.

The court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant sentencing principles, including the need to find facts consistent with the jury's verdict, the nature of the crime, and the impact on the victim's family. The court found that Hachem's actions were driven by anger over the victim's relationship with another man, which was a significant factor in the offence. The absence of a prior criminal history and mental health issues did not outweigh the severity of the crime. The court emphasised the importance of victim impact statements in understanding the consequences of the offence on the victim's family. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, concluding that it was appropriate in the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with no changes or modifications to the sentence. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering all relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence for a serious offence such as murder.

Orders