R v Hazairin Iskandar - [2012] NSWSC 1324

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hazairin Iskandar [2012] NSWSC 1324
Hearing dates: 4 - 8 June 2012; 12 - 15 June 2012; 18 - 22 June 2012; 25 - 27 June 2012 and 12 October 2012
Decision date: 07 December 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
Accused sentenced to a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment commencing 23 February 2010 and expiring 22 February 2027 with an additional term of 6 years expiring 22 February 2033.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - sentence - guilty verdict by jury - joint criminal enterprise with son to kill wife's lover - provocation defence rejected by jury - pre-planning - no provocation - older offender.
Cases Cited: Beveridge v R [2011] NSWCCA 249
De Rosiers v R [2006] NSWCCA 16
Dwayne William Smith v R [2011] NSWCCA 209
Goebel-McGregor v R [2006] NSWCCA 390
Holyoak v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
R v Bolt [2001] NSWCCA 487; (2001) 126 A Crim R 284
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119
R v Koloamatangi [2011] NSWCCA 288
Regina v White (NSWCCA - 23 June 1998 - unreported)
Windle v R [2011] NSWCCA 277
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Hazairin Iskandar (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
K Shead (Crown)
J Trevallion (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Archbold Legal Solutions Pty Ltd (Accused)

File Number(s): 2010/48301

Judgment

On 27 June 2012 a jury convicted Hazairin Iskandar of the murder of Mohd Shah Saemin on or about 21 February 2010.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 20 years.

The facts

I will deal with the factual background. The facts which I find against the Offender have been found by me to be beyond reasonable doubt, and those in his favour on the balance of probabilities.

Nita Iskandar and Hazairin Iskandar were born in Indonesia. They were married in 1984 and moved to Australia some three months later. There was only one child of the marriage being Andrew Iskandar. Andrew was born in Sydney on 16 May 1990. He was, therefore, 19 at the time of the offence. The family have lived at Croydon since about 1984.

The Offender worked as a taxi driver and Nita came to work as a clerk in the Malaysian Consulate in Sydney in 2000. The Deceased Mohd Shah Saemin (known as Shah) commenced employment with the Malaysian Consulate in 2006. He had a second job driving buses to and from the Airport.

Nita came to know that the Deceased and his wife had separated. Nita had a sister, Jujung also called Suzanne, in Indonesia. When she visited Nita and the Offender about eight or nine months before his arrest (perhaps May or June 2009) Nita introduced Suzanne and the Deceased. Although it appeared a relationship might develop between them Suzanne decided it…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hazairin Iskandar and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWSC 1324
Decision Date: 07 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hazairin Iskandar involved the defendant, Hazairin Iskandar, who was convicted by a jury of the murder of his wife's lover. Iskandar was found guilty of participating in a joint criminal enterprise with his son to kill the victim. The case was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court of appeal. The primary dispute revolved around the sentence to be imposed on Iskandar following his conviction, with particular attention paid to whether the pre-planning of the murder constituted an aggravating factor and the unsuccessful defence of provocation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the pre-meditated nature of the crime constituted an aggravating factor in sentencing, and whether the rejection of the provocation defence by the jury was appropriate. Given the jury's finding that there was no provocation and that the murder was pre-planned, the court needed to weigh these factors against the age and background of the offender. Additionally, the court had to consider the joint criminal enterprise, the level of participation by Iskandar, and his age as an older offender.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the pre-planning of the murder was indeed an aggravating factor that warranted a harsher sentence. The court upheld the jury's rejection of the provocation defence, concluding that there was no evidence to support that Iskandar acted under significant emotional disturbance. The court also considered the nature of the joint criminal enterprise and Iskandar's active role in the murder. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account all the relevant factors, including Iskandar's age and the gravity of the crime.

No additional orders were made by the court.

Orders