R v Hawi - [2012] NSWSC 332

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hawi [2012] NSWSC 332
Hearing dates: 24 February 2012
Decision date: 10 April 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 28 years 6 months with non-parole period of 21 years 6 months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder and affray - violent confrontation between members of rival bikie gangs at airport terminal - offender leader of Comanchero gang - killing of associate of rival Hells Angels gang - claims of provocation, duress and self-defence rejected
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Mahmoud Hawi
Representation: Ms N Adams with Ms H Roberts (Crown)
Mr P Dunn QC (Offender)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Sid Hawach & Co

File Number(s): 2009/50087; 2009/52582
Publication restriction: Non-publication of anything that would identify witnesses known as SP and AL

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 2 November 2011, the offender, Mahmoud Hawi, was found guilty by a jury of the offences of affray and murder.

The maximum penalty for affray is imprisonment for 10 years and for murder it is imprisonment for life. A standard non-parole period of 20 years is prescribed for the offence of murder. These are statutory guideposts that I am required to take into account, along with all of the other facts, matters and circumstances pertinent to the assessment of sentence.

The trial commenced with the empanelment of the jury on 24 May 2011 with seven accused. The jury retired on 29 September 2011 and returned its verdicts on 2 November 2011.

I heard and received evidence and submissions on sentence on 24 February 2012 before standing the matter over until today.

Facts

The matter concerns events at the Qantas domestic terminal at Sydney airport on 22 March 2009 when there was conflict between members of rival outlaw motorcycle gangs, the Comancheros and the Hells Angels. The offender was the national president of the Comancheros and had been so since about 2002. The club had a hierarchical structure with strict and enforceable rules. These rules governed members' behaviour and reinforced a strong culture of loyalty of members to the club and to one another; cowardice was not tolerated. As the national president, the offender had "absolute power" in that he could overrule any decisions taken by members.

The Comancheros had been in conflict with the Hells Angels for some time. A business being conducted by persons associated with the Hells Angels in Brighton-le-Sands had been firebombed. A Hells Angels controlled tattoo parlour in Petersham was the subject of a drive-by shooting. A Hells Angels clubhouse in Crystal Street, Petersham had been bombed. It was the belief of police that the Comancheros were responsible for each of these incidents. Graffiti sprayed at the front of the premises in Brighton-le-Sands of the initials "ACCA" supported that belief. The initials stand for "Always Comanchero, Comanchero Always" (T3985.45).

Evidence of these incidents was not before the jury. However, it was an agreed fact that there was an ongoing hostility between the Comancheros…

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 Hawi

Details

AGLC: R v Hawi [2012] NSWSC 332
Case: [2012] NSWSC 332
Decision Date: 10 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hawi, the defendant stood before the court facing charges stemming from a violent confrontation between members of rival bikie gangs at an airport terminal. Hawi, a leader of the Comanchero gang, was accused of the murder of an associate of the Hells Angels gang. The incident resulted in severe injuries to multiple individuals, including the fatal injury to the Hells Angels member. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant's defence included claims of provocation, duress, and self-defence, all of which were ultimately rejected by the court.

The legal issues central to this case involved the interpretation of the charges against Hawi, the admissibility and weight of the evidence presented, and the application of relevant legal principles to determine the appropriate sentence. The court had to assess whether the defendant's actions constituted murder, the degree of premeditation, and the applicability of any mitigating factors or defences. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the severity of the violent conduct and its consequences in the context of gang-related activity.

In its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented. It found that the defendant's claims of provocation, duress, and self-defence were unconvincing, given the circumstances and the nature of the confrontation. The court found Hawi guilty of murder, considering the premeditation and the role he played as a leader in orchestrating the attack. The sentencing phase reflected the gravity of the crime, taking into account the violent and organised nature of the confrontation, the fatal outcome, and the defendant's position within the Comanchero gang. The court imposed a substantial prison sentence, emphasising the need to deter such gang-related violence and uphold the rule of law.

The final orders of the court included Hawi's conviction for murder and the imposition of a lengthy prison term, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court's decision underscored the importance of addressing gang-related violence and the responsibilities of leaders within such groups.

Orders