R v Ibrahim - [2001] VSC 210

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1458 of 1999

THE QUEEN

DAVID IBRAHIM

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 JUNE 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. IBRAHIM
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 210

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Murder – Premeditated shooting – Intended victim former de facto wife – Wrong person killed by mistake – Mental state one of depression and anger – False memory of shooting following hypnosis – Need for general deterrence – Sentence of 19 years with a minimum of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Horgan SC and Mr. D. Bracken	Stephen Carisbrooke Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. R. Punshon SC and Mr. R. Marron	Patrick Dwyer

HIS HONOUR:

David Ibrahim, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Sue Connie Chircop at Keilor Downs on 27 September 1998. It is now my responsibility to sentence you. In order to do so, it is necessary to examine the facts surrounding the commission of this offence so as to place your actions in context. Those facts, as I regard the jury to have found them, may be briefly summarised.

On the morning of 27 September 1998, you drove in your red Ford utility from your mother's home in Newport to the Keilor Downs area. You were armed with two .25 pistols, a Browning and a Tanfoglio, and you were seeking a confrontation with your ex de facto wife Carol Chircop. As fate would have it, as you drove south down Copernicus Way, Keilor Downs, you observed the red Ford Probe vehicle usually driven by Carol Chircop travelling in the opposite direction towards Lady Nelson Way. You swung your vehicle across the path of the red Probe, forcing it to screech to a halt. There are a number of witnesses to what followed. You alighted from your vehicle in a manner described as angry or aggressive and moved quickly towards the stationary red Probe. You had already armed yourself with the Browning pistol, which was loaded and cocked ready to fire. On arriving at a position about a metre away from where the offside front door and quarter panel joined, you raised your weapon and commenced firing. Four shots were fired in quick succession. The first two penetrated the front windscreen of the vehicle. The second two were fired through the driver's side window into the back of the female driver who, the jury would have inferred, was crouching over in a futile endeavour to escape injury. On the preponderance of evidence, no words were spoken by you, although one witness heard a female screaming at the time the shots were being fired.

Somehow the red Probe managed to leave the scene. Whether this was through the efforts of the mortally wounded driver or the endeavours of its other occupant, a male seated in the front passenger seat, 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.

Continue reading R v Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: R v Ibrahim [2001] VSC 210
Case: [2001] VSC 210
Decision Date: 12 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Ibrahim, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the murder of a man, who was not his intended target. The intended victim was his former de facto wife. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge had adequately considered the factors that mitigated the defendant's culpability, particularly his mental state at the time of the offence.

The court held that while the defendant had intentionally committed a heinous crime, there were significant mitigating factors that warranted consideration. The defendant had been suffering from severe depression and anger at the time of the offence, which had clouded his judgment. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had a false memory of the shooting, which had been implanted following a session of hypnosis. These factors, along with the need for general deterrence, led the court to conclude that the sentence of 19 years with a minimum of 14 years was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the gravity of the crime but found that the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between punishment and the mitigating circumstances.

In light of the above, the High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. The court ordered that the sentence be reduced to 17 years with a minimum of 12 years. This decision recognises the mitigating factors present in the case while maintaining a focus on the need for general deterrence.

Orders