R v Jibran

Case [2019] NSWDC 317


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jibran [2019] NSWDC 317
Hearing dates: 06 February 2019
Decision date: 06 February 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non parole period of 3 years - decline to find special circumstances. 

Catchwords: CRIME -SENTENCE - Aggravated kidnapping - drive whilst disqualified - destruction of property.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss; 86(2)(b), 195(1)(a), and Road Transport Act 2013, ss 54(1)(a)
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

Mohammed Jibran (Offender)
Representation:

Mr Sit (ODPP Parramatta)

Mr Brock (For the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/141608
Publication restriction: Nil

​

  1. Mohammed Jibran, you appear for sentence today in relation to 3 offences.  The first, and principal, offence is that of aggravated kidnapping, taking or detaining a person with intent to obtain an advantage.  The maximum penalty to that offence is 20 years' imprisonment and there is no standard non‑parole period. 

  2. In addition to that principal offence, you have consented to this Court dealing with two matters on a s 166 certificate.  Those matters are driving whilst disqualified and destroying property.  The maximum penalty for those offences in the Local Court is 12 months and 2 years imprisonment respectively.

  3. The facts surrounding the 3 offences are substantially contained in an agreed statement of facts. Those facts are, to an extent, supplemented by information which has been provided to the Court by the sentencing assessment report and the expert psychologist's report.

  4. In 2018, you were 30 years old.

  5. You had been married when you were between the age of 20 and 30 years. 

  6. During the course of your marriage, you had a number of extra‑marital affairs which brought stress to the marriage. 

  7. It is not entirely clear from the facts whether, as at 4 May 2018, you had separated from your wife.  But whether or not you had actually formally separated from her, the marriage was on shaky ground to say the least.

  8. On 4 May 2018, you had been released on bail by police.  

  9. Somehow, in circumstances not revealed in the statement of agreed facts, you left the police station and managed to travel to premises at Merrylands where you met a young woman with whom you had previously had an affair.  You arrived about 10pm.  You and she then got into a motor vehicle and drove from Merrylands to Concord, where she lived. 

  10. Although you had been in an intimate relationship with her, she did not want you to know precisely where she was then living.  She told you to the drive the motor vehicle near her home and she asked you to stay in the car while she went inside to retrieve some of your property that she had been keeping for you and which she was going to return to you.

  11. When she returned to the motor vehicle, you then drove her and yourself towards the city so that you could meet a friend.  This was getting on towards midnight and…

Continue reading R v Jibran

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jibran [2019] NSWDC 317
Case
[2019] NSWDC 317
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jibran before the court involved the defendant, Jibran, who was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, driving while disqualified, and destruction of property. The charges stemmed from a series of incidents where Jibran had kidnapped an individual, inflicted violence, and caused damage to property. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the severity of these crimes.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Jibran's multiple offences, given their seriousness and the need for both punishment and deterrence. The court needed to balance the culpability of the defendant with the need to protect the community and provide just punishment. The court also considered whether any of the offences could be considered as having special circumstances, which would warrant a more lenient sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the offences were serious and warranted a significant term of imprisonment. The court found that the appropriate aggregate term of imprisonment was four years, with a non-parole period of three years. The court rejected the notion that any of the offences constituted special circumstances, as the evidence did not support such a finding. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the facts, the nature of the offences, and the need for an appropriate sentence that served the interests of justice.

The court's final order was an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of three years. The court also declined to find any of the offences as having special circumstances. This decision reflects the gravity of the crimes committed and the need for a sentence that adequately addresses the seriousness of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non parole period of 3 years - decline to find special circumstances.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.