R v Ibrahim - [2006] VSC 475

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1528 of 2005

THE QUEEN

AHMED MUKTHAR IBRAHIM

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 December 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 December 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ibrahim
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 475

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Offences of robbery and attempted murder – Knife attack against former wife - Breach of existing intervention order - Early pleas of guilty – Non-English speaking background of accused – Total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Ryan SC	Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I Crisp	Michael J Gleeson & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Ahmed Mukthar Ibrahim, you have pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and one count of attempted murder and I must sentence you for those offences. In order to do so, it is necessary to understand the facts and circumstances surrounding their commission. The victim of both these incidents was your former wife Sadia Abdurahman. You had met her in Cairo in 1996. Each of you migrated independently to Australia during that year. You became reacquainted in Melbourne and a relationship developed. It appears that this relationship was opposed by Ms Abdurahman's parents who, on one occasion sent her to the Netherlands in order to thwart it. However, you followed her there. Eventually, having returned to Australia, you eloped with her and married in Sydney in February 1999, according to the rites of the Islamic religion. You remained in Sydney where your wife obtained employment. At one stage you claimed to have worked as a cleaner in a meat works in Lakemba. Like many aspects of this case there is a conflict between your assertion and that of Ms Abdurahman who claims she was supporting you.

In any event, in November 1999, your first child Mohammed was born. Shortly after the birth of your son the relationship with your wife commenced to deteriorate with arguments and general conflict. One cause of dissention was the fact that your wife had taken Mohammed to Melbourne for her parents to look after. Subsequently, you and your wife separated and, in January or February 2001, you each returned independently to Melbourne where you lived with your respective parents for a short period of time before renting a property together in Glenroy.

In March 2001 your daughter Marwa was born.

It was submitted by the Crown that you finally separated from your wife shortly after March 2001 and that she went to live in a Ministry of Housing property in Reservoir. Through your counsel you disputed this assertion, claiming to have lived at that address for some period of time between 2002 and 2005. But even on your account to Mr Bernard Healey, a clinical psychologist who prepared a report on your behalf in April 2005, you were certainly not residing…

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 Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: R v Ibrahim [2006] VSC 475
Case: [2006] VSC 475
Decision Date: 14 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ibrahim, the appellant was convicted of two offences: robbery and attempted murder. The charges stemmed from an incident where the appellant, armed with a knife, attacked his former wife. This assault occurred despite the existence of an intervention order prohibiting the appellant from approaching his former wife. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentencing for these serious offences. Factors considered included the appellant's early pleas of guilty, his non-English speaking background, and the totality of his criminal history. The court was required to balance these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offences, which involved a violent attack against a former spouse.

The court found that while the offences were indeed severe, the appellant's early guilty pleas and his non-English speaking background warranted some mitigation. However, the court emphasised the need for a strong deterrent and rehabilitative response to protect the community and prevent future offending. Consequently, the court imposed a total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years. This sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances and the need to uphold public safety.

The court did not make any additional orders beyond the sentence. The focus remained on ensuring that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes while considering the mitigating factors presented.

Orders