R v Keshtiar - [2004] VSC 140

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1413 of 2003

THE QUEEN

MOHAMMAD AKBAR KESHTIAR

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 - 31 March, 22 April 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 April 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mohammad Akbar Keshtiar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 140

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - 2 counts of Attempted Murder – Shooting of two victims with admitted intent to kill – Prisoner currently serving sentence of seven years and six months for another shooting - Concurrency and cumulation – New overall head sentence of fifteen years and six months - New non-parole period of twelve years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Gamble	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Lovitt QC	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Mohammad Keshtiar, you have been found guilty by a jury of the attempted murder of each of Rouba Issa and Christopher Tsagaris at Burwood on 18 January 2003. I will refer to the two victims after this as Rouba and Chris. In January 2003, you had known Chris for many years. You met him when both of you were doing security work. The two of you had become close friends. You met Rouba socially. In 2001, you and Rouba entered a relationship which continues to the present time. In January 2003, you resided officially with your parents. You were then paying the rent on a house at 345 Highbury Road, where Rouba lived. You stayed there regularly.

On Saturday 18 January 2003, shortly after 10 p.m., you telephoned Rouba to say that you were coming over later to stay the night with her. You then rang Chris. You said that you wanted to meet him to get some party drugs from him. The two of you arranged to meet at a service station near the Highbury Road house. The two of you met as arranged and then went to the house. You arrived there shortly before 11 p.m. The two of you entered the house through the rear door. Chris sat on a chair in the living room area. The television was on. Rouba was sitting on a couch nearby. Shortly after the three of you were together, you started yelling at Rouba. You accused her angrily of being unfaithful to you. She yelled back. The arguing between the two of you in the presence of Chris made him feel very uncomfortable. He phased out. He was not looking at you or Rouba. You had on you a revolver. From that revolver, you fired four or five rounds. You hit Rouba once and Chris three times. The injuries that Chris received in the left chest, and right shoulder were particularly serious. Indeed, they were life-threatening. They were to keep him in hospital for around one month.

After firing off the revolver, you moved around the inside and outside of the…

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 Keshtiar

Details

AGLC: R v Keshtiar [2004] VSC 140
Case: [2004] VSC 140
Decision Date: 26 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Keshtiar, the respondent was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The charges stemmed from the shooting of two individuals, where the respondent admitted to having the intent to kill. The respondent was already serving a sentence for another shooting offence. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentencing for the new charges, taking into account the existing sentence and the principles of concurrency and cumulation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentences for the new charges should run concurrently or cumulatively with the existing sentence, and what the appropriate overall sentence and non-parole period should be. The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the new offences, the respondent’s criminal history, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also examined the impact on the victims and the community.

The court determined that the sentences for the new charges should run concurrently with the existing sentence. It then imposed an overall head sentence of fifteen years and six months and set a new non-parole period of twelve years. The reasoning was based on the severity of the new offences, the respondent's previous criminal conduct, and the need to ensure adequate punishment and deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of the new sentence, which was to run concurrently with the existing sentence, resulting in an overall head sentence of fifteen years and six months, with a non-parole period of twelve years. The court's decision aimed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of the community while considering the respondent's criminal history and the specifics of the new offences.

Orders