R v Hakeem - [2007] VSC 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1563 of 2005

THE QUEEN

HAKEEM HAKEEM

---

JUDGE:	Kellam J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 and 14 September 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 January 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hakeem
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 5	Revised 1 February 2007

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Intentionally cause serious injury – Seven counts of rape –Three separate incidents involving four victims over a three day period – Sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 17 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M. Williams S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Connellan	Paul Vale Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

You Hakeem Hakeem have been convicted after trial by a jury, of one count of rape and one count of false imprisonment. The maximum penalty for a count of rape is 25 years’ imprisonment and for a count of false imprisonment is 10 years’ imprisonment. These crimes arise out of circumstances which took place at a derelict scout hall in Princes Highway, Dandenong on 10 March 2005. Your 16 year old victim, whom I shall call LL, was present at that scout hall with a young male friend when you and another unidentified male entered the premises. You and the unidentified male locked the hall door behind you. Your victim was then dragged into an ablution area of the scout hall. She kicked and screamed and resisted attempts to force her into that part of the hall. Thereafter she was raped by both the unidentified male and by you. Although the prosecution case before the jury was that you were the person who raped LL first, and on two occasions, I am satisfied beyond doubt that the jury verdict is consistent with their conclusion that you raped LL by penetrating her vagina with your penis on one occasion, and after she had been raped on two occasions by the unidentified male. Upon being interviewed by police you denied all knowledge of the events in question and denied ever having entered the scout hall. Subsequently a condom was found with your DNA on it in the scout hall. Your victim gave evidence of having requested one of her assailants to wear a condom. This crime is most serious and is aggravated by the fact that you committed it in company and that you offended against your young victim with knowledge that she had been violated already by your associate.

On the following day, 11 March 2005, you committed further serious offences to which you have pleaded guilty. These offences took place at the home of another victim to whom I shall refer as KK. She was a woman of 63 years of age who lived by herself in her home in Dandenong. At about 7 pm that night she heard noises coming from the area of her front door. She walked towards the door and there…

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 Hakeem

Details

AGLC: R v Hakeem [2007] VSC 5
Case: [2007] VSC 5
Decision Date: 30 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Hakeem, was convicted on seven counts of rape, stemming from three separate incidents involving four victims over a span of three days. The case was heard in a higher court, which had jurisdiction over serious criminal matters. The central issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Hakeem, given the severity and frequency of the offences. The court needed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in light of the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court acknowledged the heinous nature of Hakeem's crimes, which involved intentional infliction of serious injury upon his victims. The court considered various factors, including the number of victims, the repetitive nature of the offences, and the psychological impact on the victims. Additionally, the court weighed the submissions from both the prosecution and the defence regarding the appropriate sentence. After careful deliberation, the court determined that a sentence of 24 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years, was warranted. This sentence reflected the severity of the crimes and aimed to provide both retribution and deterrence to potential future offenders.

The court's decision was influenced by the cumulative effect of the crimes, which demonstrated a pattern of violent behaviour towards vulnerable individuals. The lengthy sentence was intended to underscore the gravity of the offences and to protect the community from further harm by Hakeem. The non-parole period was set to ensure that Hakeem would spend a significant portion of his sentence behind bars, providing a strong deterrent against reoffending. The court's ruling was a clear message that such serious and violent crimes would not be tolerated, and that those who commit them will face substantial consequences.

Orders