R v Hadchiti - [2014] NSWSC 257

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hadchiti (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 257
Hearing dates: 21 February 2014
Decision date: 18 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years, 9 months commencing on 14 October 2013 and expiring on 13 July 2035.
Balance of term of 7 years, 3 months, is to commence on 14 July 2035 and to expire on 13 October 2042.
The earliest date eligible for release on parole is 13 July 2035. Sentence will expire on 13 October 2042.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - serious offence - objective seriousness - high moral culpability - planning -aggravating factors - use of weapon - offence committed in company - mitigating factors - no record of prior convictions - prior good character remorse and prospects of rehabilitation and not re-offending not established - deterrence - personal circumstances - no special circumstances - victim impact statement - custodial sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 302 ALR 207
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Lewis [2001] NSWCCA 448
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Michael Hadchiti
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Hobart SC (Crown)
Mr M Dennis (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Nyman Gibson Stewart (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/347089
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

On 13 November 2013, a jury convicted the offender, Michael Hadchiti, of the murder of Billy Mack, the boyfriend of his sister, Marian Roumanos, after a trial at which he gave evidence that he had killed Billy Mack in self defence, after Billy Mack attacked him with a knife, when he came to the defence of his mother, Sonia Hadchiti.

He now stands for sentence for his offence.

This Court's task

I will begin by explaining how the offender's sentence must be arrived at, by reference to what legislation enacted by the Parliament and binding case law requires in a sentencing exercise such as this.

After a jury verdict, the sentencing judge must take a view of the facts relevant to sentencing which is consistent with the verdict which the jury has reached, with any reasonable doubt being resolved in favour of the accused (see Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1 at [14]). Disputes as to factual findings have to be resolved…

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 Hadchiti

Details

AGLC: R v Hadchiti [2014] NSWSC 257
Case: [2014] NSWSC 257
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. The case before the court was an appeal against the sentence imposed for the murder of a man. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances. The primary judge had considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's moral culpability, the planning involved, and the use of a weapon. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the absence of prior convictions and the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court held that the objective seriousness of the offence was high due to the nature of the crime and the level of planning involved. The moral culpability was also high, and the use of a weapon was an aggravating factor. While the appellant had no prior convictions and expressed remorse, these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence. The court further found that the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood of not re-offending were not sufficiently established. The deterrence value of the sentence was also a significant consideration. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the factors relevant to sentencing, including the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's moral culpability, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The court determined that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime and adequately served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and public protection.

Orders