R v Haidas - [2021] NSWDC 235

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Haidas [2021] NSWDC 235
Hearing dates: 9/4/21
Date of orders: 9/4/21
Decision date: 09 April 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
Re Robbery armed with an offensive weapon - Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 1 years 8 months (23/6/20-22/2/22).
I find special circumstances.
25 percent discount for plea of Guilty.
Re Drive whilst disqualified – I find the breach proved but I take no action on the breach of the CCO.

Catchwords:
Crime – Sentence – Robbery armed with an offensive weapon

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346
Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

Category: Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Zakariya Haidas - Offender
Representation: Mr Kemp for Crown
Mr Shridhar for Offender

File Number(s): 20/37715, 20/185551

sentence

Mr Zakariya Haidas is for sentence on an offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, being an offence under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty, of course, is an important guidepost in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard. He has pleaded guilty at an early stage and is entitled to, and I have taken into account, a discount of 25% on account of the utilitarian value of that plea of guilty.

FACTS

The facts of the offence are agreed and relate to events on 19 May 2020. The offence occurred at a convenience store called the Mannix Convenience Store, which is located at Warwick Farm. That store is located within a small shopping complex and sells everyday items such as cigarettes, drinks, and some food items. The particular store was owned and operated at the time by Ms Ruan, who was the effective victim of the offence.
The offence occurred at about 4.45pm on 19 May 2020, when two males, one of them being this offender and the other being a young person, entered the Mannix Convenience Store, each of them wearing hooded jumpers and face masks. The victim stood up and walked towards the cash register and saw the two males were holding weapons. The co-offender in a black hooded jumper holding a silver baseball bat, and the male wearing a grey hooded jumper, that being this offender, holding what is described as a weapon with a blade, which, by reference to CCTV material that I was shown today and a photograph that is included in the facts, evidently was some kind of small tomahawk or axe.
The co-offender with the black jumper jumped over the counter while this offender knelt on the counter and directed his weapon towards the victim who was behind the counter. The victim said, “Please, please don't hurt me. You take anything you want.” At that point, the co-offender began grabbing cigarettes…

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 Haidas

Details

AGLC: R v Haidas [2021] NSWDC 235
Case: [2021] NSWDC 235
Decision Date: 09 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Haidas, the defendant stood accused of committing robbery while armed with an offensive weapon. The matter was heard and determined by the court, which was tasked with resolving the legal issues pertaining to the defendant's criminal liability and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The defendant pled guilty to the charge of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, as well as a breach of a Chief Magistrate's Order, which prohibited the defendant from driving while disqualified. The court was required to decide whether the defendant's plea of guilty warranted any adjustment to the penalty, as well as the appropriate sentence for the robbery charge and whether to take any action in respect of the breach of the Chief Magistrate's Order.

In assessing the appropriate sentence for the robbery charge, the court considered the principles of sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the defendant's criminal history. The court found that the robbery was committed while armed with an offensive weapon, which increased the severity of the offence. However, the court also acknowledged that the defendant had pleaded guilty, which warranted a discount to the penalty. The court determined that a 25 per cent discount should be applied for the plea of guilty. Additionally, the court found that special circumstances existed, which further warranted a reduction in the sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. The court also found the breach of the Chief Magistrate's Order proved but took no action in respect of the breach.

The court's final orders were that the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. The court also found that special circumstances existed and applied a 25 per cent discount for the plea of guilty. The court took no action in respect of the breach of the Chief Magistrate's Order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Re Robbery armed with an offensive weapon - Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 1 years 8 months (23/6/20-22/2/22).

I find special circumstances.

25 percent discount for plea of Guilty.

Re Drive whilst disqualified – I find the breach proved but I take no action on the breach of the CCO.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Haidas [2021] NSWDC 235
Hearing dates:	9/4/21
Date of orders:	9/4/21
Decision date:	09 April 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Re Robbery armed with an offensive weapon - Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months with a NPP of 1 years 8 months (23/6/20-22/2/22). I find special circumstances. 25 percent discount for plea of Guilty. Re Drive whilst disqualified – I find the breach proved but I take no action on the breach of the CCO.
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentence – Robbery armed with an offensive weapon
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346 Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192 BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	NSW DPP – Crown Zakariya Haidas - Offender
Representation:	Mr Kemp for Crown Mr Shridhar for Offender
File Number(s):	20/37715, 20/185551