R v Kamoun

Case [2023] NSWDC 110

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kamoun [2023] NSWDC 110
Hearing dates: 24 April 2023
Date of orders: 24 April 2023
Decision date: 24 April 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 33

Catchwords:

CRIME – appeal and review – severity appeal from Local Court - sexual offences involving children

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 66DB, 66DD

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5

Cases Cited:

Park v The Queen (2021) 395 ALR 193; [2021] HCA 37

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
K Kamoun (offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R Driels for the offender
Ms D Mansour (solicitor advocate) for the ODPP

Solicitors:
Abbas & Co Lawyers for the offender
ODPP
File Number(s): 2021/00047478
Publication restriction: Non-publication of the victim’s name in accordance with s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
22 December 2022
Before:
Magistrate G Walsh
File Number(s):
2021/00047478

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 22 December 2022, the Bankstown Local Court sentenced Khadir Kamoun to a term of imprisonment for two years for the offence (seq 4) that, contrary to s 66DB(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), on 18 February 2021, between 7:30pm and 8:00pm at Bankstown, the offender intentionally incited a child aged between 10 and 16 years of age to sexually touch a person. The maximum penalty for that offence, when tried in this Court, is 10 years but when tried summarily, as it was here, was 2 years and/or 100 penalty units.

  2. This sentence was imposed after a plea of guilty on 24 October 2022, apparently the date of the hearing, yielding a modest 5% discount.

  3. When sentencing the offender for the sequence 4 offence, the learned Magistrate was asked to take into account the offender’s acknowledgement of guilt to the additional offence on a Form 1 that in the same time range, date and place, and contrary to s 66DD(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) the offender intentionally carried out a sexual act with or towards a child aged between 10 and 16 years, by masturbating in front of the child.

  4. There is a discrepancy in the formal recording of the sentence. The offender’s record indicates that the sentence was to commence on 22 December 2022 and conclude on 21 December 2024. However, the Crown accepts that the learned Magistrate’s sentencing remarks indicated that the commencement date should be backdated to 18 February 2021 and thereby expire on 17 February 2023, a date which, of course, has come and gone. As a matter of fact, she has been in continuous custody since 21 April 2021.

Circumstances of offending

  1. The parties placed before the Local Court a statement of agreed facts.

  2. The victim is a young male who was 14 years 9 months old at the time of the offence. The offender was born on 21…

Continue reading R v Kamoun

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Kamoun [2023] NSWDC 110
Case
[2023] NSWDC 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Kamoun, appealed the sentence imposed by the Local Court for sexual offences involving children. The Local Court found the appellant guilty of multiple charges, including sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years of age and committing an indecent act with a child under 14 years. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The appeal was heard by the District Court, where the appellant argued that the sentence was excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Local Court was manifestly excessive. The appellant contended that the sentence was disproportionate given the nature of the offences and the appellant's background. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's background, and the principles of sentencing outlined in relevant legislation. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and took into account the appellant's guilty plea, which resulted in a 25% discount. The court also considered the impact of the offences on the victims and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Local Court be confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 33

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.