COUNSEL: Mr P Barrett (Crown) Mr C Craigie SC; Ms J Healey (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - Crown appeal - domestic violence offences - pleas of guilty to multiple offences committed against three victims over eight-year period - offender with record for offences of violence - principles applicable in sentencing repeat domestic violence offenders - importance of specific and general deterrence - relevance of mental illness - whether sentence manifestly inadequate
DECISION: Crown appeal allowed, sentences increased (see paragraph 152 of judgment).
JUDGMENT:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
1371/2006
HUNT AJA JOHNSON J LATHAM J
20 September 2006
Regina v Azzam Abdul Hamid
Judgment
HUNT AJA: I agree with the orders proposed by Johnson J, and with the reasons he has given for those orders.
JOHNSON J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions under s.5D Criminal Appeal Act 1912 alleging manifest inadequacy of sentences imposed upon the Respondent, Azzam Abdul Hamid, by his Honour Judge Charteris SC at the Sydney District Court on 5 May 2006 for a number of serious domestic violence offences.
Sentences Imposed in District Court
Following pleas of guilty, the Respondent was sentenced for the following offences:
(a)Count 1 - on or about 5 July 1996, at Cringila, assault Kristie Lee Coombs (s.61 Crimes Act 1900 - maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment) - imprisonment for fixed term of six months to date from 25 June 2004 and expire on 24 December 2004;
(b)Count 2 - between 1 March 1997 and 7 June 1997, at Cringila, assault Kristie Lee Coombs thereby occasioning to her actual bodily harm (s.59 Crimes Act 1900 - maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment) - imprisonment for nine months comprising a non-parole period of six months to date from 25 July 2004 and to expire on 24 January 2005, with the balance of term to expire on 24 April 2005;
(c)Count 3 - on or about 7 June 1997, at Cringila, assault Kristie Lee Coombs thereby occasioning to her actual bodily harm (s.59 Crimes Act 1900) - imprisonment for 15 months comprising a non-parole period of six months to date from 25 August 2004 and to expire on 24 February 2005 with the balance of term to expire on 24 November 2005;
(d)Count 4 - between 1 January 2002 and 1 January 2003, at Warrawong, detain Rosemary Vasconcelos without her consent and with intent to obtain an advantage, namely, to avoid detection for assaulting…
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 Hamid
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 302
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Hamid, the respondent, a man with a history of violent offences, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales. The appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The respondent had pleaded guilty to multiple domestic violence offences committed against three victims over an eight-year period. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was adequate, considering the principles applicable to sentencing repeat domestic violence offenders, the importance of specific and general deterrence, and the relevance of the offender’s mental illness. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, primarily because it failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence. The appellate court took into account the cumulative effect of the respondent's violent conduct, his history of similar offences, and the impact on the victims. It was determined that the original sentence did not sufficiently address these factors, leading to the conclusion that a harsher penalty was warranted.
The reasoning of the court emphasised the need for sentences in domestic violence cases to reflect the seriousness of such crimes and to serve as a deterrent to the offender and others in similar situations. The court highlighted that the respondent’s pattern of abusive behaviour, coupled with his history of violence, necessitated a sentence that would effectively communicate the unacceptability of such conduct. Furthermore, the court noted that the original sentence did not adequately consider the necessity for general deterrence, which is crucial in cases involving repeated acts of domestic violence. The appellate court also reviewed the impact of the respondent’s mental health issues on his offending behaviour, but concluded that these factors, while relevant, did not justify a significantly reduced sentence. The overarching consideration was the need to protect the community and to ensure that the sentence imposed would have a meaningful deterrent effect.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Following imposition of these sentences on 5 May 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions gave notice in writing to the Respondent on 19 May 2006 of his intention to appeal against the inadequacy of sentence. On 14 June 2006, a Notice of Appeal under s.5D Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.Facts of Offences A Statement of Agreed Facts was tendered in the sentencing proceedings together with a skeletal Outline of Facts for the Form 1 offences. They reveal the following criminal conduct. The Respondent met the victim, Kristie Lee Coombs, at Wollongong during 1994. The Respondent was 22 years old at that time. About three months after they met, the Respondent and Ms Coombs moved into a house together. They married in 1997. There are three children of the relationship. A daughter, Nazmieh, was born on 8 July 1996. A second daughter, Yasmin, was born on 10 July 1998 and a son, Jacob, was born on 11 August 1999.Offences Against Kristie Lee Coombs On 5 July 1996, three days before the birth of Nazmieh, Ms Coombs was talking with a friend of hers in their home at Cringila. The Respondent came into the room in a rage and said “You fucking bitch, Social Security wouldn’t pay me”. He then grabbed the victim around the throat, lifted her against the wardrobe and punched her in the right eye. When the Respondent went to leave the house, he was confronted by police who had been called by staff from Centrelink following an earlier incident at that office. Ms Coombs was taken to hospital by her friend and, upon arrival, she told the treating doctor she had been hit by a friend (Count 1). On or about 18 February 1997, at Cringila, the Respondent held Ms Coombs’ left arm over the sink and poured boiling coffee over her forearm, causing it to blister (Offence 1 (s.59(1) Crimes Act 1900), Form 1). On a windy evening, between 1 March and 7 June 1997, Ms Coombs went outside to check on some pups as their kennel had blown over. At this time, the Respondent was asleep. After fixing the kennel, the victim walked back into the house through the rear door and was confronted by the Respondent. He said “Where have you been?”. She replied “Fixing the kennel”. He said “Come here”. When the victim approached the Respondent, he punched her in the mouth causing a bottom-row tooth to break (Count 2). Between 1 March and 7 June 1997, the Respondent made Ms Coombs sit in a chair in their tobacconist shop and poured lighter fluid over her head and body. The Respondent sat opposite Ms Coombs with a lighter and threatened to kill her if she moved (Offence 2 (s.61 Crimes Act 1900), Form 1). Between 1 March and 7 June 1997, at Cringila, the Respondent struck Ms Coombs with a metal part of a vacuum cleaner across the back of her shoulders and down to the back of her legs (Offence 3 (s.61 Crimes Act 1900), Form 1). On or about 7 June 1997, Ms Coombs was preparing to leave the house at Cringila to open the shop operated by the Respondent and her when she was confronted by the Respondent in their home. Without warning, the Respondent grabbed her and started punching her in the face. She struggled to get away, but the Respondent had hold of her top. He continued punching her in the hallway and the two ended up in the bedroom. There, he straddled the victim on the bed and repeatedly punched her to the face, causing blood to spatter onto the walls. He then stopped and left to go to the shop. Ms Coombs was treated at the Wollongong Hospital by Dr Eng Lee, who diagnosed her as suffering from an undisplaced fracture of the nasal bones (Count 3).