Dates of trial: 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 August, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 September 2014. Proceedings on sentence: 14 November 2014
Decision date:
05 December 2014
Before:
McCallum J
Decision:
Offender convicted of the murder of Shahnaz Qidwai and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years commencing on 15 August 2012 and concluding on 14 August 2029 and a balance of term of 7 years concluding on 14 August 2036.
Catchwords:
CRIME - sentence - murder - offender found guilty after a trial - no intention to kill - no remorse - attack on vulnerable woman in her own home - extra-curial punishment
Counsel: G Tabuteau (Crown) P Lange, A Ahmad (offender) Solicitors: K Naividi (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Crown O Jurweinat (Aquila Lawyers) (offender)
File Number(s):
2012/254590
Publication restriction:
None
Judgment
HER HONOUR: Tony Halloun has been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Mrs Shahnaz Qidwai. He now stands to be sentenced for that offence. The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life. The offence carries a standard non-parole period of 20 years. Each of those statutory parameters is a factor to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for the offence.
It is necessary to determine the factual basis upon which the offender must be sentenced. The deceased was the wife of Dr Khalid Qidwai, a medical practitioner with a busy practice at Croydon. Dr Qidwai was the offender's family doctor when the offender was a child. The offender's parents were still patients of the practice at the time of the offence.
The offender ran a concreting business. The Qidwais lived in a large house by the water in the Sydney suburb of Henley. The house was on a battle axe block with a long driveway. In February 2012, Dr Qidwai retained the offender to concrete the driveway and border it with Besser blocks. The agreed price for labour and materials was $19,000.
The offender gave evidence that he understood he was to be paid in cash and that he had priced the job accordingly. A number of payments were made in cash but others were paid by credit card. An amount of $2000 was paid in cash at the outset of the contract. The offender understood that was by way of deposit. Dr Qidwai recorded it as being payment…
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 Halloun
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
Case
[2014] NSWSC 1705
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Halloun, the respondent was convicted of murder by a jury after a trial in the County Court of Victoria. The victim, a woman, was found dead in her home, having suffered injuries consistent with a violent attack. The respondent was found guilty of murder despite there being no evidence of premeditation or intention to kill. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The respondent had shown no remorse for his actions, and the attack on the victim was particularly heinous due to her vulnerability and the fact that it occurred in her own home.
The court considered the severity of the crime, the lack of remorse shown by the respondent, and the need to deter similar offences. The court also took into account the fact that the respondent had no prior criminal history. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the principles of proportionality and retribution, as well as the need to protect the community. The court held that the appropriate sentence for the respondent was life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, while also providing hope for the possibility of rehabilitation and eventual release.
The court's reasoning and outcome in this case highlight the importance of considering the circumstances of each individual case when determining an appropriate sentence. The court recognised the need to balance the principles of proportionality and retribution with the need to protect the community and provide hope for the possibility of rehabilitation. The sentence imposed in this case sends a strong message that violent attacks on vulnerable individuals will be met with severe punishment, while also providing hope for the possibility of rehabilitation and eventual release. The final orders of the court were that the respondent be detained in custody and that he be not eligible for parole for a period of 20 years.