Legal Research
Cases
R v Khazma

R v Khazma

Case [2019] NSWSC 416 12 April 2019

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Khazma [2019] NSWSC 416
Hearing dates: 28 March 2019
Decision date: 12 April 2019
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 44 years with a non-parole period of 33 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – victim aged 2 years – sustained physical abuse in days preceding death – whether imprisonment for life appropriate – high-range objective seriousness however not in worst case category – subjective circumstances do not attract leniency – no remorse – primacy of considerations in respect of denunciation, deterrence and community protection
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292
R v AS [2018] NSWSC 930
R v Hill [2014] NSWSC 1010
R v JK [2018] NSWSC 250
R v Khazma [2018] NSWSC 2055
R v LN; R v AW (No 10) [2017] NSWSC 1387
R v Maybir (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 166
R v SW (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 1043
Ross v R [2016] NSWCCA 176
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Mohammed Khazma (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
L Brasch (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/381116

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: Mohammed Khazma was convicted by a jury on 4 March 2019 of the murder of DB on 20 December 2016. She was aged 2 years and 8 months when she died. The cause of death was the sequelae of blunt force head and spinal cord injuries.
The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The Crown submitted that consistent with the operation of s 6(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) this case warrants the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment.
Where a child is murdered and a determinate sentence is imposed, a standard non-parole period of 25 years applies. After an assessment of the objective seriousness of the murder, including the context in which the murder was committed and the mental element accompanying the acts that were causative of death, the standard non-parole period operates as a guidepost in fixing a non-parole period referable to the imposition of a determinate sentence.
It was the Crown’s primary case at trial that on either or both of 18 and 19 December 2016 the offender deliberately inflicted the injuries that were causative of death and that when he did those acts (on both occasions involving the application of considerable blunt force to DB’s head) he acted with the intention of causing her grievous bodily harm.
The head injuries inflicted on 18 December 2016 were alleged to have resulted from the offender grabbing the child’s head and “slamming it into the wall”. The head injuries inflicted the following day (when the child was clearly suffering compromise to her neurological function from the assault the previous day) resulted from the offender slapping the back of the child’s head under sufficient force…

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 Khazma

Details

AGLC: R v Khazma [2019] NSWSC 416
Case: [2019] NSWSC 416
Decision Date: 12 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Khazma involved a defendant charged with the murder of a two-year-old child. The victim had suffered severe physical abuse over several days before ultimately succumbing to the injuries. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appropriate sentence for the defendant, convicted of murder, was life imprisonment. The court considered the high objective seriousness of the crime but noted that it did not fall within the worst category. Additionally, the court evaluated the subjective circumstances of the case, including the defendant's lack of remorse and the broader considerations of denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

The High Court determined that, while the crime was objectively very serious, the subjective circumstances did not warrant any reduction in the sentence. The court emphasised that the primary considerations in sentencing for murder included denouncing the crime, deterring the defendant and others from committing similar offences, and protecting the community. Given the heinous nature of the crime and the absence of any mitigating factors, the court concluded that a life sentence was appropriate. Consequently, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court.

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed that the sentence of life imprisonment was suitable for the defendant, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the necessity to uphold the principles of justice, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

Orders