R v Karaali (No 10) - [2023] NSWSC 866

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Karaali (No 10) [2023] NSWSC 866
Hearing dates: 7 July; 21 July
Date of orders: 24 July 2023
Decision date: 24 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Mr Karraali is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 28 years, having a non-parole period of 21 years commencing on 13 July 2020 and expiring on 12 July 2041, with an additional term of 7 years commencing on the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 12 July 2048. The sentence is to commence from 13 July 2020.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — murder — guilty by verdict of a jury — infliction of serious physical assault including punches, kicks, an athletic kick to the head and stomping — deceased suffered an extensive catastrophic brain injury — offender found to have had an intention to kill — offender was the “muscle” in his co-offenders plan to exact retribution for purchasing a non-genuine pair of wireless earbuds — offender denied assistance from passers-by and told lies explaining the deceased’s state — consideration of whether childhood circumstances were such to reduce moral culpability — offender’s substance abuse and mental health considered — murder committed whilst on parole — consideration of parity principle regarding co-offenders — absence of remorse — offender’s subjective case was not compelling — no special circumstances found to justify altering the non-parole statutory ratio

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 19A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21, 21A, 42, 44, 54A, 54B, 54B, 54D, 61

Cases Cited:
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67;
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Hamdach [2023] NSWSC 298 at [85]
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Abdul Karaali (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
I Wallach (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
TNL Law (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/61211

JUDGMENT

When the offender, Abdul Karaali was arraigned in the Supreme Court on 5 March 2021 on an indictment charging him with the murder of Ross Houllis at Wakley on 7 February 2020, he entered a plea of not guilty to which plea he thereafter adhered.
After longer than usual progression through this Court due to COVID-19 disruption and an adjournment necessitated in substantial part by the late service of expert evidence by the Crown leading to the discharge of a jury empanelled in August 2022, the offender’s trial finally commenced before another jury empanelled on 21 February 2023 who returned a verdict of guilty on 16 March 2023.
It is now my task to pass sentence on the offender…

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 Karaali (No 10)

Details

AGLC: R v Karaali (No 10) [2023] NSWSC 866
Case: [2023] NSWSC 866
Decision Date: 24 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Karaali (No 10) involved the sentencing of an individual convicted of murder. The deceased had been subjected to a brutal assault by the offender, which included punches, kicks, an athletic kick to the head, and stomping, resulting in a catastrophic brain injury from which the deceased did not recover. The offender had acted as the “muscle” for his co-offenders, who sought retribution for purchasing a non-genuine pair of wireless earbuds. The offender not only denied assistance to passers-by but also lied about the circumstances surrounding the deceased’s condition.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offender, the consideration of any mitigating factors such as the offender's childhood circumstances, substance abuse, and mental health issues, and whether these factors could reduce moral culpability. Additionally, the court had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing between co-offenders, the offender’s lack of remorse, and whether any special circumstances existed to warrant a deviation from the statutory non-parole period for murder.

The court found that, while the offender’s background and personal issues were significant, they did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crime. The offender had acted with the intention to kill, and there was no evidence of genuine remorse. The court concluded that the statutory non-parole period should be applied, and no special circumstances were present to warrant a deviation. The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The final orders of the court were that the offender was to serve life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised that the sentence should also serve as a statement of community values and the condemnation of such violent behaviour.

Orders