R v Haddad - [2007] NSWDC 82

CITATION: R v Haddad [2007] NSWDC 82

HEARING DATE(S): 01/02/07

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 February 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ

DECISION: See para 73 to 78.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentence - armed robbery with dangerous weapon - young offender - totality.

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Thomson & Houlton(2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 12
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
The Queen v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
R v Blackburn & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
The Queen v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Letteri (unrep, 18/03/92 NSWCCA)
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Regina v Perrin [2001] NSWCCA 422
Regina v Tarek [2004] NSWCCA 401

PARTIES: Regina
Mouhamed Haddad

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0667; 06/11/0675; 06/11/0751; 06/11/0916

COUNSEL: Mr M Shaw - Offender

SOLICITORS: M Finlay - DPP - Crown

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Mouhamed Haddad appears today for sentence in relation to, as I understand it, five counts of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon committed respectively on 8 March, twice on 13 March, once on 15 March and once on 17 March 2006, one count of robbery in company committed on 5 March 2006 and one count of detain for advantage in company occasioning actual bodily harm committed on the same date and at the same time in effect as the robbery in company committed on 5 March 2006.

2 The offences, with the exception of the robbery in company, which I will describe as the principal offences that he has pleaded guilty to and are the subject in due course of sentencing orders, each carry a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment. The offence of robbery in company carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment.

3 I am also required to take into account on two Forms 1, one count of armed robbery committed on 11 March 2006, two counts of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon, in fact the same dangerous weapon, committed on 13 March 2006 and 17 March 2006, and one count of assault with intent to rob committed on 7 March 2006. The maximum penalties of the offences on the two Forms 1 vary from twenty-five years imprisonment to fourteen years imprisonment.

4 The offender, who is now aged eighteen and will turn nineteen in mid-March of this year was aged seventeen and/or had just turned eighteen at the time of the commission of the various offences. The detail of his age at the relevant time I will expand upon later.

5 The charges with which I am concerned, both principal charges and matters on a relevant Form 1, arise out of his arrest on 17 March 2006. After the events of that date he was subsequently arrested…

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 Haddad

Details

AGLC: R v Haddad [2007] NSWDC 82
Case: [2007] NSWDC 82
Decision Date: 15 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haddad was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Haddad, was convicted of armed robbery while in possession of a dangerous weapon. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed, particularly considering Haddad's status as a young offender. The prosecution argued for a lengthy custodial sentence given the gravity of the crime, while the defence advocated for a lesser sentence, taking into account Haddad's age and the principle of totality.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Haddad, given the statutory requirements and judicial principles surrounding sentencing for young offenders. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of rehabilitation and the lesser culpability of a young person. The defence argued that the principle of totality should significantly reduce the custodial sentence to avoid disproportionate punishment, while the prosecution sought to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime.

The court considered various factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and Haddad's age and background. It acknowledged the seriousness of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon but also recognised the need to consider the principle of totality and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that while the offence warranted a significant custodial sentence, the principle of totality and the mitigating factors of Haddad's age and background required a reduction in the sentence. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs 73 to 78 of the judgment, outlining the specific sentence imposed on Haddad. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality principle in sentencing young offenders and the need to tailor sentences to the individual circumstances of the offender. The court also highlighted the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for young offenders to reform and reintegrate into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para 73 to 78.

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.

CITATION:	R v Haddad [2007] NSWDC 82
HEARING DATE(S):	01/02/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 February 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION:	See para 73 to 78.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - sentence - armed robbery with dangerous weapon - young offender - totality.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Thomson & Houlton(2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 12 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 The Queen v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 R v Blackburn & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 The Queen v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA) R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Letteri (unrep, 18/03/92 NSWCCA) R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 Regina v Perrin [2001] NSWCCA 422 Regina v Tarek [2004] NSWCCA 401
PARTIES:	Regina Mouhamed Haddad
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0667; 06/11/0675; 06/11/0751; 06/11/0916
COUNSEL:	Mr M Shaw - Offender
SOLICITORS:	M Finlay - DPP - Crown