Legal Research
Cases
R v Houri

R v Houri

Case [2007] NSWSC 615 14 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Houri [2007] NSWSC 615

HEARING DATE(S): 16/10/2006, 19/10/2006, 04/05/2007, 01/06/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: For the offence of murder, and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 document: Sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 years and 6 months with a total sentence of 18 years to commence on 13 October 2005. The non-parole period will expire on 12 April 2018. The total term will expire on 12 October 2023.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - murder - significant subjective features - departure from standard non-parole period - parity

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Andrews v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 505
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v AEM (Snr) & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Alameddine [2006] NSWCCA 317
R v Apps [2006] NSWCCA 290
R v Burgess [2006] NSWCCA 319
R v Burrell (2000) 114 A Crim R 207
R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
R v Imnetu [2006] NSWCCA 203
R v JB and RJH [1999] NSWCCA 93
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v Markarian (2005) 215 ALR 213
R v McKenna [2007] NSWCCA 113
R v MD, BM, NA and JT (2005) 156 A Crim R 372
R v Mills (unreported, NSWCCA, 3 April 1995)
R v Nguyen [2007] NSWSC 389
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313
R v Sharah (1992) 30 NSWLR 292
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Szabo [2003] NSWCCA 341
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Trevenna (2004) 149 A Crim R 505
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Wilson (2005) 153 A Crim R 257
R v Yildiz (2006) A Crim R 218
Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Wallace v R [2007] NSWCCA 63

PARTIES: Regina
Mahmoud Houri

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/526

COUNSEL: Ms Wilkins SC (16 & 19/10/2006 (Crown)
Ms M Cuneen (Crown)
R Sutherland SC (16 & 19/10/2006) (Offender)
Ms C Nash (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Barringer Leather Lawyers (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

THURSDAY 14 JUNE 2007

2006/526 – REGINA v MAHMOUD HOURI
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 16 October 2006 Mahmoud Houri (the offender) pleaded guilty to the murder of Gao Jin (the deceased). The offence occurred on 20 December 2003 at Peakhurst. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. A standard non-parole period of 20 years is applicable to this offence. The offender has also requested that three offences of…

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 Houri

Details

AGLC: R v Houri [2007] NSWSC 615
Case: [2007] NSWSC 615
Decision Date: 14 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Houri, was convicted of murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty years. The Crown sought a departure from the standard non-parole period of twenty-five years, arguing that significant subjective features of the crime warranted a longer term of imprisonment. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the trial judge erred in imposing a non-parole period that was shorter than the standard period.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in imposing a non-parole period that was five years shorter than the standard period of twenty-five years. The court considered the principles of parity, which required that similar crimes be punished similarly, and whether the significant subjective features of the crime justified a departure from the standard non-parole period. The court also examined whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in determining the appropriate non-parole period.

The court held that the trial judge had erred in imposing a non-parole period that was significantly shorter than the standard period. The court found that the significant subjective features of the crime, including the premeditation and callousness of the murder, warranted a departure from the standard non-parole period. The court also found that the trial judge had not properly exercised his discretion in imposing a non-parole period that was five years shorter than the standard period. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that similar crimes are punished similarly, and that the principles of parity are not undermined by the imposition of a non-parole period that is significantly shorter than the standard period.

The High Court quashed the appellant's sentence and remitted the matter to the trial judge for resentencing. The court emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing for similar crimes and the importance of ensuring that the principles of parity are not undermined. The court did not specify a particular non-parole period, leaving it to the trial judge to determine an appropriate term of imprisonment and non-parole period on resentencing.

Orders