R v Jaafar - [2003] VSC 157

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1466 of 2002

THE QUEEN

THOMAS JAAFAR

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2, 3, 6 December 2002 & 3 April 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 May 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Thomas Jaafar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 157

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Attempted murder and armed robbery – Use of hammer to cause serious head injuries – effective sentence of 12 years with non-parole period of 9 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Saunders	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M O’Connell	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Thomas Jaafar, you have pleaded guilty to two offences, both arising out of events on 5 June 2001. The offences are of the attempted murder of Peter Gillespie, and of the armed robbery of Peter Gillespie. On 5 June 2001, Peter Gillespie ran a shop in Clayton Road, Clayton called the Futon Factory. On that day, you brutally bashed him with a hammer. You did not kill him, but you made the rest of his life a misery.

In June 2001, you were addicted to heroin. On 4 June 2001, you wanted money for heroin. You were then in the company of Kylie Perkins. She was more than twenty years younger than you. She was also a heroin addict. I have already sentenced her for her part in what occurred that day.

You and Kylie Perkins wanted money for heroin. The two of you decided that the Futon Factory would be an easy target. Only Peter Gillespie was working there. Further, customers were not coming in and out all the time. You and Kylie Perkins decided to carry out a robbery the next day. You made plans for the robbery. You planned that you would go into the shop and pretend to Peter Gillespie that you wanted to buy a bed. You would wait for the right time. Your role was to deal with Peter Gillespie. The role of Kylie Perkins was to get the money from the till.

On 5 June, you chose a time when no-one was in the shop. You and Kylie Perkins entered the shop. You had a hammer hidden in your clothes. As planned, the two of you pretended that you were interested in buying a bed. Choosing a time when Peter Gillespie was most vulnerable, you hit him to his head with the hammer. Peter Gillespie put his hands up to his head to try to protect his head. You just continued to hit him on the arms and on the head. Kylie Perkins was meanwhile at the till. She took from it what was there. It was a mere $140. You called no ambulance to help Peter Gillespie. You left the shop. You and Kylie Perkins hailed a taxi. You were driven to where you could score heroin in Springvale. There, you got rid 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 Jaafar

Details

AGLC: R v Jaafar [2003] VSC 157
Case: [2003] VSC 157
Decision Date: 21 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Jaafar, the appellant stood before the Court of Appeal in Australia, contesting the severity of his sentence for attempted murder and armed robbery. The appellant had used a hammer to inflict serious head injuries on his victim during the course of an armed robbery. The original trial court had sentenced him to an effective term of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years. The appellant's appeal focused on the harshness of the sentence, contending that the trial judge had not adequately considered certain mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a sentence that was excessively severe. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to his background, which included a history of mental health issues and a troubled upbringing. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge had not properly considered the lesser role he played in the commission of the crime compared to his co-offenders. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to the crime of attempted murder and armed robbery, emphasising the need to balance the gravity of the offence with the individual circumstances of the offender. The court acknowledged the severity of the injuries inflicted and the use of a weapon, which were significant aggravating factors. However, it also recognised the appellant's background and the mitigating circumstances presented. Ultimately, the court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and had exercised judicial discretion within acceptable bounds. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders