Legal Research
Cases
R v Hamze

R v Hamze

Case [2005] NSWSC 136 3 March 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Hamze [2005] NSWSC 136

HEARING DATE(S): 17/02/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

3 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Howie J at 1

DECISION:
See paras 34 and 35.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing for Hinder investigation and Possess prohibited firearm

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - s 315
Firearms Act 1996 - s 7
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - 1999 - s 24

CASES CITED:
R v Cromarty (2004) 144 A Crim R 515
R v Nias (NSWCCA, unreported 16 November 1988)
R v Webster and Jones (NSWCCA, unreported, 3 August 1992)

PARTIES:
Regina v Radwan Hamze

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/2350

COUNSEL:
W. Dawe QC - Crown
R. Button - Offender

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Offender

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

THURSDAY 3 MARCH 2005

2004/2350 REGINA v RADWAN HAMZE
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 His Honour: The offender, Radwan Hamze, was committed for trial to this Court on a charge of hindering the discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence. This is an offence contrary to s 315 of the Crimes Act for which a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years is prescribed. On 1 October 2004 he was arraigned before Barr J on an indictment containing two counts, the first being for the committal offence and the second being for an offence of being in possession of a prohibited firearm. The second offence was one contrary to s 7 of the Firearms Act for which the maximum penalty where the offence is dealt with on indictment is imprisonment for 14 years. The offender pleaded guilty to both offences.

2 It is necessary to say something shortly about the history of the matter. The offender was originally charged by police with affray arising from an incident on 10 June 2002 during which shots were fired killing one man and wounding another. Later he was charged with murder and being an accessory after the fact arising from an incident on 10 June 2002 during which shots were fired killing one man and wounding another arising from the same incident. At the conclusion of committal proceedings the magistrate discharged the offender on these charges but committed him for trial on the offence of hindering police. That committal charge arose from a concession made by Mr Button to both the prosecutor and the Magistrate that the offender was guilty of that offence but not guilty of the offences for which he had originally been charged. In fact an offer was made to the effect that the offender would plead guilty before the Magistrate to the hinder charge, if the other charges were withdrawn. However, the prosecutor refused the offer. Shortly after the offender was committed for trial on the hinder charge he indicated his willingness to plead guilty to that offence and he did so on his first arraignment in this Court.

3 There is also before me a Form 1 document…

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 Hamze

Details

AGLC: R v Hamze [2005] NSWSC 136
Case: [2005] NSWSC 136
Decision Date: 3 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hamze, was convicted of hindering an investigation and possessing a prohibited firearm. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The matter arose from an incident where the appellant interfered with the investigation of a crime and was found to be in possession of a firearm that was not legally held. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the appellant's conduct and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the trial judge's assessment of the seriousness of the appellant's conduct, considering both the hindering of the investigation and the possession of the prohibited firearm. The court held that the trial judge did not err in his assessment of the seriousness of the appellant's conduct, as the appellant's actions demonstrated a significant degree of interference with the investigation and a disregard for the law regarding firearm possession. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offences committed.

In summary, the High Court upheld the appellant's convictions and the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge correctly assessed the seriousness of the appellant's conduct and that the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Orders