R v Khan - [2016] NSWSC 1073

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Khan
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWSC 1073
Hearing Date(s):	22 July 2016
Decision Date:	5 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Fullerton J
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 40 years with a non-parole period of 30 years
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – murder – manslaughter – cause grievous bodily harm – wounding – destroy property by fire – pre-planning – total criminality – no remorse – aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; 161 CLR 10 Dean v R [2015] NSWCCA 307 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Dean [2013] NSWSC 1027 R v Grant [2002] NSWCCA 243; 131 A Crim R 510 R v Olig [2002] NSWCCA 249
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Adeel Ahmad Khan (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Tedeschi QC / K Jeffreys (Crown) L Brasch (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bannisters Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2014/279068

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: At about 4.05am on 4 September 2014, police and emergency services were notified of a massive explosion in the vicinity of a convenience store in Darling Street, Rozelle.
The convenience store was operated from the ground floor of premises at 627-629 Darling Street, being one of a series of two-storey terraced shops with frontage onto Darling Street, each with a residence on the upper floor or floors. The premises at 627-629 Darling Street consisted of the retail store at street level with a storeroom and cool room at the rear of the store accessed via an internal hallway. The rear storeroom was also accessible via a concrete pathway from a driveway at the rear of the premises.
The retail business was operated by the offender under a five year lease, commencing in December 2013, at a monthly rental of $8,800. It was a term of the lease that in the event that the premises were destroyed by fire the lessee would be entitled to terminate the lease.
The offender acquired loan finance to purchase the business and to outfit it as a convenience store. The business was not profitable. As at 4 September 2014 an electricity bill in the amount of $3,435 was overdue, as was the current monthly payment of rent. The offender did not have access to sufficient funds to discharge those debts. He had tried unsuccessfully to sell the business (thereby relieving him of his obligations under the lease) in April 2014.
At the time of commencing to operate the business the offender was aware there was a three-bedroom apartment above the convenience store under a separate lease to three young men as joint tenants: Christopher Noble, Todd Fisher and Corey Cameron. The offender was aware the apartment had a separate entrance via an external staircase. The staircase was accessed from the rear driveway. It was the sole means of access. The window in…

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 Khan

Details

AGLC: R v Khan [2016] NSWSC 1073
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1073
Decision Date: 5 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Khan involved the defendant, Khan, who stood accused of several serious offences, including murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, wounding, and damaging property by fire. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that Khan had meticulously planned and executed a series of violent acts, leading to the death of a victim and severe injuries to others. The court was tasked with determining Khan’s culpability for each offence and subsequently deciding on an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the severity and nature of the offences, the level of pre-planning involved, and the defendant’s attitude towards the crimes. The court had to assess whether the acts were committed in a manner indicative of extreme pre-planning and whether Khan showed any remorse or exhibited any mitigating factors that could influence the sentencing. Furthermore, the court had to consider the appropriate aggregate sentence that would adequately reflect the totality of Khan’s criminal conduct.

In its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence presented and concluded that Khan’s actions were pre-meditated and demonstrated a significant degree of pre-planning. The court found that Khan showed no remorse and continued to exhibit a lack of empathy for his victims. Taking into account the totality of the criminality, the severity of the offences, and the absence of any mitigating circumstances, the court determined that an aggregate sentence was necessary. This approach aimed to ensure that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of Khan’s crimes and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that considered the cumulative impact of the offences committed by Khan.

Orders