R v Irani; R v Sakisi - [2001] NSWSC 475

CITATION: R v IRANI; R v SAKISI [2001] NSWSC 475

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70052/00; 70210/00

HEARING DATE(S): 09/03/2001, 04/05/2001,18/05/2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 June 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v
Whalid IRANI
REGINA v
Asipeli Ben SAKISI

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P Dare
Irani: W Terracini SC
Sakisi: R Button

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Irani: Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors
Sakisi: DJ Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - murder - Criminal Law - sentencing - accessory before the fact of maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 23

DECISION: See paras 42, 43 and 44

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

Friday, 15 June 2001

70052/00 - REGINA v Whalid IRANI
70210/00 - REGINA v Asipeli Ben SAKISI

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 4 July 2000 and 12 July 2000 the offenders Whalid Irani and Asipeli Ben Sakisi were committed to this Court for trial on charges respectively of murder and accessory before the fact of murder. On 1 December 2000 Sakisi pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of accessory before the fact of malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Irani pleaded not guilty and his trial was fixed to commence on 12 March 2001. On 5 February 2001 he changed his plea to guilty of murder.

2 The deceased, Richard Piech, was employed as an accountant by a large retail organisation. His duties included the supervision of accounting staff. One of his staff was an accounts payable clerk whom I shall call X. Between June 1999 and January 2000 X defrauded the company by substituting account particulars of herself and others for the particulars of legitimate creditors of the organisation, so diverting payments intended for those creditors into the accounts of herself and her colleagues. Altogether about $290,000 was diverted in this manner. X resigned her employment but agreed to work on until a replacement could be found. She intended to use the remaining period of her employment to execute one or more major fraudulent transfers to obtain further large sums of money. She feared that if she did so Mr Piech would find her out, so she devised a plan which if successful would make him unable to attend work for two or three weeks. She approached Sakisi, whom she knew, and told him that she wanted a person out of work for a little while. She wanted Sakisi to give him “a little touch up”, which he understood to mean “just hit him”. She said that she wanted the person bashed hard enough to be off work for two weeks. She asked Sakisi if he knew anybody who would do the job and said that she would pay $2,500 to $3,000. Sakisi got in touch with Irani, whom he knew but whom X did not know, and passed on the message. Irani expressed interest. X provided the two with details…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Irani; R v Sakisi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWSC 475
Decision Date: 15 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Irani; R v Sakisi, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the two accused, Irani and Sakisi, who had been convicted of their respective crimes. Irani was convicted of murder, while Sakisi was found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to the offence of maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The central issue before the court was the principle of proportionality in sentencing, particularly in relation to the severity of the crimes committed by the accused. The court was required to assess the mitigating and aggravating factors in each case, and to ensure that the sentences imposed were commensurate with the gravity of the offences.

The High Court began its analysis by examining the role of sentencing principles in the criminal justice system, emphasising the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the culpability of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. In considering the appropriate sentence for Irani, the court highlighted the heinous nature of the murder, including the premeditation and the absence of remorse shown by the offender. The court also took into account the need for general deterrence, and the need to provide some measure of retribution for the victim and their family. In determining the sentence for Sakisi, the court recognised the lesser role played by the accused as an accessory, but also considered the significant contribution made by Sakisi to the commission of the crime.

After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, the High Court concluded that the sentences imposed by the lower courts were appropriate, taking into account the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The court found that the sentences for both Irani and Sakisi were commensurate with the gravity of their respective offences, and did not find any grounds to interfere with the original sentencing decisions. The High Court emphasised the importance of judicial restraint in matters of sentencing, and the need to afford deference to the sentencing judge's assessment of the facts and the appropriate sentence in each case. The court ultimately upheld the sentences imposed by the lower courts, with no orders made for further action.

Orders