R v House - [2021] VSC 419

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0288

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
QASIM HOUSE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 July 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v House
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 419

---

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Attempted aggravated carjacking – Reckless conduct endangering persons – Theft – Prohibited person possess firearm – Handling stolen goods – Offending in aftermath of fatal shooting during driving sequence which resulted in two separate, serious collisions – Offender aware that police in pursuit at the time – Offender affected by illicit drugs – Relevance of deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community – Remorse evidenced by early plea of guilty – Delay – Guarded prospects for rehabilitation – Sentence of six years and three months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three years and nine months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Bourke QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Edney	Gallant Law

HER HONOUR:

Qasim House, you have pleaded guilty to five offences, namely attempted aggravated carjacking, prohibited person possess firearm, reckless conduct endangering persons, theft and handling stolen goods.

The maximum penalties for these offences are imprisonment for 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, 10 years and 15 years respectively.

Summary of Offending

The objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability for it are very high.

On 23 November 2017 you had been at the home of Yen Ngo. Ms Ngo was involved in the business of drug trafficking. You had been in a sometimes intimate relationship with her for a few months. You also bought illicit drugs from her.

On that day you had with you a firearm; a sawn-off shotgun in very ill repair. It lacked a trigger guard and both the barrel and the butt had been shortened. It was loaded. You were prohibited from possessing a firearm because less than five years had passed since you had completed a term of imprisonment for an indictable offence. You had possession of the firearm for ‘protection’ given the drug milieu in which you and Ms Ngo were involved.

During the afternoon Ms Ngo was asleep in her room. Your gun was on the corner of her bed. You were in another bedroom where, with others, you consumed a quantity of drugs. This included methylamphetamine or ‘ice’ apparently provided by Ms Ngo’s housemate, as well as heroin from your own supply of drugs. You then went to Ms Ngo’s bedroom where you sat on the floor with your back against the wall. You remained in her bedroom while she slept, either writing letters or continuing to smoke drugs by yourself. At some point, Ms Ngo woke up and you smoked heroin together before you drifted off to sleep.

You have given evidence[1] that you awoke to hear Ms Ngo saying words to the effect of ‘I don’t care…

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 House

Details

AGLC: R v House [2021] VSC 419
Case: [2021] VSC 419
Decision Date: 16 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, House, was charged with multiple offences, including attempted aggravated carjacking, reckless conduct endangering persons, theft, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The incidents arose from a sequence of driving events that occurred following a fatal shooting. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. House pleaded guilty to all charges.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case, particularly considering the nature of the offences and the circumstances in which they were committed. The court also needed to consider the relevance of deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community, as well as the offender's remorse, delay in coming to court, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged that House was affected by illicit drugs at the time of the offence, which might have influenced his actions.

The court found that the offences were of a serious nature and warranted a substantial sentence. However, the court recognised the respondent's early guilty plea, which demonstrated some level of remorse. The court also noted the delay in the proceedings and the guarded prospects for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined a sentence of six years and three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months to be appropriate.

The court ordered that House serve six years and three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The sentence reflects the serious nature of the offences and the need to protect the community, while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders