R v Hakim - [2023] NSWDC 605

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hakim [2023] NSWDC 605
Hearing dates: 20 October 2023
Date of orders: 20 October 2023
Decision date: 20 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
1   Jason Hakim is convicted.
2   Taking into account the matters on the Form 1 and the discount for the plea of guilty, I impose a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months to date from 30 September 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 29 March 2024 and the head sentence will expire on 29 September 2026.
3   The offender will be eligible to be released on parole on 29 March 2024.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and commit serious indictable offence
CRIME — Property offences — Destroying or damaging property
CRIME — Violent offences — Stalking or intimidation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 1907
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jason Hakim (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
H White (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Takchi and Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/258332
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Jason Hakim (the offender) appears for sentence after entering a plea of guilty in the Local Court to an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, contrary to s 112(2), Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment. The standard non-parole period is 5 years.
The offender also asks the Court to take into account the following offences on a Form 1 schedule:

one count of intentionally or recklessly destroy/damage property (DV) contrary to s 195(1), Crimes Act 1900; and

one count of stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm (DV), contrary to s 13(1), Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

Approach to Sentencing

To the extent that I make findings of fact adverse to the offender, I am satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. To the extent that I make findings of fact favourable to the offender, I am satisfied of that fact on the balance of probabilities: R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
I have taken into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and had regard to the matters set out in s 21A of the Act.
The offender entered a plea of guilty in the Local Court and is entitled to a 25% discount on sentence: s 25D(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
I have taken into account the principles outlined in the guideline judgment relating to the Form 1 offences: Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147.

Facts

The parties tendered an Agreed Statement of Facts.…

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 Hakim

Details

AGLC: R v Hakim [2023] NSWDC 605
Case: [2023] NSWDC 605
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hakim, the defendant, Jason Hakim, stood trial in a court of law on various charges including breaking and entering with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, damaging property, and stalking or intimidation. The charges stemmed from a series of incidents where Hakim exhibited aggressive and threatening behaviour towards a female victim, culminating in his unlawful entry into her residence and subsequent damage to property within.

The court was tasked with determining the guilt of the defendant on the charges brought against him. This involved assessing the evidence provided, including witness testimonies, and the circumstances surrounding each offence. A central issue was whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hakim had indeed engaged in the criminal activities as alleged. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentencing, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors, and the impact of the defendant's early guilty plea.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found Hakim guilty on all charges. The reasoning included a careful evaluation of the prosecution's case, which demonstrated a clear pattern of intimidation and criminal behaviour. The sentencing reflected a balanced consideration of the severity of the offences and the defendant's early plea of guilty, leading to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of 18 months. This decision was made to ensure justice was served while also considering the opportunity for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Jason Hakim is convicted.

2 Taking into account the matters on the Form 1 and the discount for the plea of guilty, I impose a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months to date from 30 September 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 29 March 2024 and the head sentence will expire on 29 September 2026.

3 The offender will be eligible to be released on parole on 29 March 2024.

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 Hakim [2023] NSWDC 605
Hearing dates:	20 October 2023
Date of orders:	20 October 2023
Decision date:	20 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	1 Jason Hakim is convicted. 2 Taking into account the matters on the Form 1 and the discount for the plea of guilty, I impose a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months to date from 30 September 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 29 March 2024 and the head sentence will expire on 29 September 2026. 3 The offender will be eligible to be released on parole on 29 March 2024.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and commit serious indictable offence CRIME — Property offences — Destroying or damaging property CRIME — Violent offences — Stalking or intimidation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 1907 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Jason Hakim (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: H White (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Takchi and Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/258332
Publication restriction:	None