R v Helal - [2007] VSC 135

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1412 of 2007

THE QUEEN

MONZIR HELAL

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 May 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Helal
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 135

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Other offences arising from planned burglary and armed robbery leading to shooting of occupant – 6 years 6 months with non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S. Cooper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Melasecca	Rob Melasecca

HIS HONOUR:

Monzir Helal, you have pleaded guilty to three offences, aggravated burglary, attempted armed robbery and manslaughter, that arise out of the lead up to the killing, and then the killing of Robert D’Amico at Tullamarine on 2 September 2003. Following their trial by jury, three other men, Craig Galas, Ismail Muhaidat and Steven Mikhael have been sentenced by me as to the first two of those three offences, and as to a further offence, arising out of that killing. Galas was found guilty by a jury of the murder of D’Amico. The same jury found each of Muhaidat and Mikhael guilty of manslaughter. The facts as I recite them as I now sentence you are substantially as I recited them when sentencing the other three.

On 2 September 2003, Robert D’Amico was shot dead at the house in Tullamarine where he was living. At that house, D’Amico had been illegally cultivating cannabis plants. Craig Galas had learned something of that crop. He enlisted Muhaidat, Mikhael and you to join him in carrying out a raid on D’Amico’s house, portraying it as an easy way of getting some cannabis and some money. The plan that was agreed to was to do a run-through at the house. A run-through is a shorthand way of describing a combined aggravated burglary of the house and armed robbery of those inside at the time.

In the early hours of the morning on 2 September 2003, you set out for the D’Amico home. Several items were taken to assist in the joint enterprise. The items included weapons to be used to intimidate, balaclavas to be used to disguise yourselves, and bags in which to take away the cannabis. Galas took with him a handgun. It was the handgun that was used to fire the fatal shot. The gun was taken by Galas with the intention on his part to use it to intimidate D’Amico, and anyone else who was in the Tullamarine house. Muhaidat took as a weapon a large baseball-bat-sized piece of wood. Mikhael carried an extendable baton. Your role was to carry the backpack to be used to remove the cannabis. In the backpack there were scissors and some plastic bags in which to place the cannabis when it had been cut.

After the four of you arrived at the…

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 Helal

Details

AGLC: R v Helal [2007] VSC 135
Case: [2007] VSC 135
Decision Date: 9 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Helal, the defendant was charged with multiple offences, including manslaughter, following an incident where he and an accomplice planned a burglary and armed robbery at a residence. The plan resulted in the fatal shooting of the occupant. The case was heard by the court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for Helal's crimes.

The court faced several legal issues, including determining the appropriate charge for the fatal shooting, weighing the circumstances surrounding the offence, and deciding on an appropriate sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes and the principles of justice. The court also had to consider the role Helal played in the events that led to the death and whether there were any mitigating factors that should be taken into account.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the planning and execution of the burglary and armed robbery, and the fact that Helal was armed during the incident. The court also considered the defendant's role in the events that led to the shooting and his previous criminal history. In delivering the sentence, the court determined that Helal was guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a total of six years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months.

The court's decision and sentence reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and the need to balance the principles of justice with the circumstances of the case. The sentence imposed aims to deter similar offences in the future and provide a measure of retribution and protection for the community.

Orders