R v Kobeissi

[2025] NSWDC 269

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Kobeissi [2025] NSWDC 269
Hearing dates:	2 April 2025
Decision date:	01 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non parole period of 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - Aggravated break and enter a dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence - drive conveyance without consent of owner.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss112(2) and 154(1)(b)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571; R v Sineva, unreported, 22 October 2024 per Hanley SC DCJ
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Khalil Kobeissi (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Van Der Velde (ODPP Parramatta) Ms Hile (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2023/00125653
Publication restriction:	Nil

JUDGMENT

1. Khalil Kobeissi, you appear for sentence today in relation to the principal offence of aggravated break and enter a dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence (the circumstance of aggravation being that you knew there were persons within the dwelling house and the serious indictable offence being robbery in company). This is sequence 4.

2. Sequence 4 involves a contravention of s112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years; and there is a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 5 years.

3. In relation to sequence 4, you have asked me to take into account one matter on a Form 1 which I have certified – that matter being aggravated break and enter a dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence (the circumstance of aggravation being in company and the serious indictable offence being larceny). This is sequence 3.

4. Additionally, you have consented to me sentencing you for an offence which ordinarily would have been dealt with in the Local Court – i.e., drive conveyance taken without the consent of the owner. This is sequence 5.

5. Sequence 5 involves a contravention of s154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for sequence 5, if prosecuted in the Local Court, is imprisonment for 2 years.

6. In relation to sequence 4, you had two co-offenders: Adeelah Khan and Timothy Sineva. In relation to sequence 3, you had only one co-offender: Ms Khan.

7. Although Ms Khan has pleaded guilty to her involvement in sequence 4 and sequence 3, she has not yet been sentenced for that criminal misconduct. Ms Khan appeared before me for sentence for those offences on 16 December 2024, but her sentencing proceedings have been adjourned while she is on s11 bail.

8. Mr Sineva was sentenced in relation to his involvement in sequence 4 by Hanley SC DCJ on 22 October 2024.

9. Each of you, Ms Khan and Mr Sineva are to be sentenced, or have been sentenced, on the basis of agreed facts. As is not uncommonly the case, there are meaningful differences in the facts which the Crown and you and your co-offenders have agreed to. In the course of your sentencing proceedings, the Crown produced a document which helpfully identified the points of difference between you and your co-offenders. Those differences, insofar as Mr Sineva are concerned, are such that parity with the sentence he received from Hanley SC DCJ is not a meaningful consideration in fixing your sentence.

10. The agreed facts surrounding your offending can be summarised as follows.

11. Sequence 3 was committed on 3 March 2023. Sequence 4 was committed the next day, 4 March 2023. Sequence 5 was committed between 5 and 6 March 2023. At the time of these various offences, you were 38 years old; Ms Khan was 28 years old; and Mr Sineva was 31 years old.

12. As at 3 March 2023, Saw Keong Lee and his cousin, Kim-Seng Lee, lived in a two-bedroom home unit on Level 1 of 105 Castlereagh Street, Liverpool.

13. During the day of 3 March 2023, Messrs Lee were away from their home unit. During their absence, you and Ms Khan entered the home unit by (one of you) removing the flyscreen from the bathroom window. You and she then stole the following items from within the home unit which belonged to Saw Keong Lee:

(a)   a Louis Vuitton bag containing: a “Seven Friday’s” watch; thousands of dollars in Australian currency (the amount not more specifically particularised in your agreed facts); Mr Lee’s Malaysian passport; and a Celine wallet;

(b)   a MSI laptop and bag;

(c)    a Nike backpack containing a further amount of cash in Australian currency (the amount, again, not more specifically particularised in your agreed facts);

(d)   a GoPro Hero 8 camera;

(e)   a container containing Australian coins;

(f)   old Apple AirPods;

(g)   electrical household appliances; and

(h)   15 tubes of badminton shuttlecocks.

14. CCTV captured you and Ms Khan leaving the premises with the stolen property.

15. Saw Keong Lee returned home that day at about 6:00pm and discovered the damage to the flyscreen and that his property had been stolen. He put the flyscreen back on the bathroom window and locked the sliding balcony door and the front door to the unit. However, both cousins were unsurprisingly scared so they left one of the lights on in the living room.

16. These are the facts for sequence 3.

17. Later that evening, you and Ms Khan met up with Mr Sineva and another man at the Voyager Motel in Minchinbury.

18. At about 4:50am on 4 March 2023, you, Ms Khan and Mr Sineva were driven by Mr Cardoso (not the unnamed man in [17]) to Liverpool. You directed Mr Cardoso to drive to the home unit complex at 103 Castlereagh Street, Liverpool, and CCTV footage captured your arrival at 5:09am. Between 5:13am and 5:31am, further CCTV footage captured you, Ms Khan and Mr Sineva walking from the carpark of 103 Castlereagh Street to the entrance of 105 Castlereagh Street, Liverpool.

19. Not long after you, Ms Khan and Mr Sineva arrived at the entrance of 105 Castlereagh Street, Ms Khan broke into the home unit occupied by Saw Keong and Kim-Seng Lee through the bathroom window. Having gained access to the home unit, Ms Khan then opened the sliding door to the balcony to allow Mr Sineva to gain access to the home unit.

20. Saw Keong Lee was asleep in his bedroom with the door open. He heard a noise, and so he went into the living room where he saw Ms Khan opening the sliding door to the balcony.

21. Mr Lee ran back into his bedroom, followed by Mr Sineva who stood in the doorway to stop him from leaving that room. Mr Sineva ordered Mr Lee not to move and not to use his phone, which was an Apple iPhone on top of a table behind Mr Lee.

22. At about this time, Ms Khan made a phone call. Approximately 30 seconds after she made that call, Ms Khan moved towards and opened the front door. The agreed facts state that Mr Lee heard a male and female talking at about this point and I have inferred, as the only rational inference, that you gained access to the unit through that front door at that time.

23. Shortly thereafter, Ms Khan went into Mr Lee’s bedroom holding a pair of scissors in her right hand. She held them open at waist-height with the sharpened ends pointed towards Mr Lee. She was approximately 1 meter away from him. Ms Khan directed Mr Lee not to move. Unsurprisingly, Mr Lee was scared that he was going to be hurt and that (more of) his property would be stolen.

24. Ms Khan then started removing items from Mr Lee’s bedroom and placed them in a backpack.

25. It is agreed between you and the Crown that you are not criminally responsible for Ms Khan’s possession, or use, of those scissors.

26. One of the items which attracted Ms Khan’s attention whilst she was in Mr Lee’s bedroom was his Apple iPhone. There was a standoff between the two of them as to whether Mr Lee would hand it over. Consequently, Ms Khan left the bedroom and “asked” you to go in, which you did. You were standing face-to-face with Mr Lee and you threatened to beat him. You used your right hand to try and grab the iPhone from Mr Lee’s left hand. You made a clenched fist with your left hand and raised it towards Mr Lee’s face. Mr Lee resisted and held onto his iPhone whilst you were still holding Mr Lee’s hand. Suddenly, you let go of Mr Lee’s hand and went out of the bedroom. Ms Khan followed you out and issued further instructions to you, as a result of which you re-entered Mr Lee’s bedroom and grabbed his iPhone from him. You demanded the password for the iPhone which Mr Lee refused to provide, as a result of which you (again) raised a fist towards him. As this was occurring, Ms Khan moved towards the table and stole the following items from Mr Lee:

(a)   a Louis Vuitton wallet;

(b)   a Bally cardholder; and

(c)   a Balenciaga wallet.

27. Shortly thereafter, you and your two co-offenders walked out into the living room and were talking to each other. At about this time, Saw Keong Lee ran out of his room and the home unit and to a nearby petrol station where he asked the attendant to call police.

28. Not long after, you and your co-offenders left the home unit and then separately left the area.

29. These are the facts for sequence 4.

30. You left the area in the motor vehicle driven by Mr Cardoso.

31. Late in the evening of 4 March 2023, Mr Cardoso picked you and Ms Khan up from Casula Mall and took you and her back to his house at Mount Pritchard. After Mr Cardoso fell asleep, his vehicle was taken. It was later involved in a crash on the Cumberland Highway. At that time, you were the driver of that stolen vehicle.

32. These are the facts for sequence 5.

33. Shortly after 11:00am on 6 March 2023, police responded to reports of a man at the VISY Recycling Centre who was on the roof and threatening self-harm. That man was you.

34. When the police arrived, they saw you on the roof threatening to jump off. You moved along the structural beams of the factory to a crane platform where you obtained a rope. You tied a noose around your neck and the other end to the crane, saying you wanted to jump off. Eventually, the police were able to convince you to climb down whereupon you were taken by paramedics to Westmead Hospital and scheduled under s22 of the Mental Health Act.

35. You were ultimately arrested on 9 April 2023 in relation to sequences 3, 4 and 5.

36. It is necessary for the Court to make findings as to the objective seriousness of sequences 4 and 5.

37. By having regard to the agreed facts, each of those offences is a serious example of that type of offence and is a mid-range offence for an offence of its kind.

38. And by having regard to the agreed facts, sequence 3 will result in a meaningful increase in the sentence for sequence 4.

39. Each of sequences 4 and 5 are additionally aggravated because, at the time you committed those offences, you were on a number of Community Correction orders in relation to matter H86360260. It is not necessary for me to further refer to those Community Correction orders because they were called up and dealt with in the Local Court.

40. Neither of Messrs Lee provided the Court with a Victim Impact Statement. However, it cannot be doubted that the fear and violation which they both are highly likely to have experienced as a result of sequence 3 would have been significantly exacerbated by the offence committed the very next day.

41. Your subjective features were placed before the Court through:

(a)   a sentencing assessment report dated 25 November 2024;

(b)   a report prepared by Mr McLean, psychologist, dated 3 December 2024;

(c)   a letter prepared by you;

(d)   a discharge notice prepared by Wayback Limited dated 8 January 2024;

(e)   miscellaneous Justice Health records; and

(f)   the sworn oral evidence which you gave on 2 April 2025.

42. It is appropriate to note that the history you gave to Mr McLean and the broad thrust of your oral evidence were not challenged by the Crown. As that evidence was not inherently implausible, and as there is no evidence to the contrary, I accept that evidence on the balance of probabilities. But that said, the contents of the sentencing assessment report, which ultimately assesses you at a high risk of reoffending, will need to be given appropriate weight.

43. In his comprehensive report, Mr McLean reviewed your:

(a)   childhood and family history – which included the death of your father when you were 2 years of age; being sexually abused when you were in primary school (and which was likely one of two causes of your later diagnosed PTSD); but, otherwise, being raised with your siblings by your mother in a loving household;

(b)   educational history – which included significant and frequent bullying such that you “dropped out of school in grade 9”;

(c)   alcohol and drug history – which commenced when you were around 19 or 20 years of age;

(d)   employment history - which has been only of the most minimal kind because of your long-term illicit drug issues;

(e)   relationship history – noting that, apart from your good relationship with your mother, you have few pro-social relationships and essentially are a social loner;

(f)   medical history – which included a serious assault whilst in custody in 2005 (and which was likely the second cause of your later diagnosed PTSD);

(g)   psychiatric history – on this topic I pause to note that the sentencing assessment report stated that the Justice Health records do not record you as having a mental health diagnosis;

(h)   family psychiatric and forensic history;

(i)   forensic history – by which Mr McLean was referring to your criminal history – and which noted that your criminal offending started when you were aged 19 years and that such offending (mainly stealing with associated violence) has been frequent and that your drug abuse has been “central” to that offending;

(j)   attitude and account of the index offending – noting that it was committed five weeks after your (then) last release from prison; and in respect of which (consistently with what you told the author of the sentencing assessment report) you sought to deflect some of the blame for the offending to your co-offender, Ms Khan; and

(k)   active symptoms.

44. Having reviewed those topics, Mr McLean carried out an informal mental health status examination; and considered the PTSD checklist in DSM-5, noting (as I have already indicated) that you “…likely met criteria for PTSD as a child following [your] sexual abuse, and again in response to [your] assault in 2005.”

45. Ultimately, Mr McLean expressed the following “Clinical Opinion” and “Recommendations”:

“CLINICAL OPINION

62.   Mr Kobeissi reported that he was sexually abused as a child. He appears to have developed low self-esteem and problems trusting others owing to his sexual abuse. He does not appear to have raised his trauma with an adult as a child (I suspect, in part, owing to cultural sensitives involving the discussion of such matters). As such, his emotional problems were neither raised with a doctor, nor treated. His emotional problems and unstable schooling appear to have interfered with his ability to form prosocial connections as a child. His low-self-esteem and trust problems likely worsened within the context of his school bullying, resulting in him dropping out in grade 9. Given his lack of confidence in himself, he does not appear to have pursued further education. He appears to have been introduced to drugs around 20 years of age, and in the absence of healthy coping mechanisms (e.g., close attachments), he likely learned to use drugs to treat his emotional and functional problems. His drug use would have enhanced his self-esteem, allowed him to numb internal distressing reminders associated with his sexual abuse (a core feature of posttraumatic stress), and foster a sense of connection with antisocial peers, also interested in drug use. Over time, his need to use drugs was likely to treat his underlying mental health and functional problems, but chiefly the discomfort which accompanies cravings and withdrawal. His antisociality (e.g., irresponsibility in failing to hold down work, engaging in crime) appears to have commenced in response to his drug use. Further, there was no evidence of conduct problems in his childhood. As such his antisociality and failure to adhere to a prosocial lifestyle appears secondary to his substance-related problems, as opposed to enduring personality traits marked by antisocial thinking, feeling, and behaving. Antisocial personality traits are typically more challenging to address in treatment, as opposed to antisociality stemming largely from addiction.

63.   At the time of the offending, Mr Kobeissi likely met criteria for heroin use disorder (F11.20), methylamphetamine use disorder (F15.20), and gamma-hydroxybutyrate use disorder (F13.20) as per The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Substance use disorders are marked by signs and symptoms that reflect compulsive, prolonged self-administration of substances that are used for no legitimate medical purpose. I suspect that he relapsed on heroin, methylamphetamine, and GHB shortly after he was released from prison (he disclosed being in the community for 5 weeks before the index offending occurred), and that peer pressure from his antisocial acquaintances partly contributed to this relapse. There appears to be a nexus between these substances use disorders and the index offending as per the case formulation below. It’s difficult to assess retrospectively, whether he met the threshold for posttraumatic stress disorder (F43.1) as per the DSM-5-TR at the time of the index offending. The essential feature of PTSD is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. Regardless, I suspect that he was experiencing posttraumatic stress symptoms around the time he was released from prison, and his need to manage these symptoms might have contributed towards his relapse. He presently met criteria for PTSD.

64.   Mr Kobeissi denied having a motivation to offend. It’s possible, in considering his lengthy history of drug-related offending, that he was motivated to offend to fund his drug dependencies. The pro of managing the discomfort which comes with cravings and withdrawal, might have outweighed the con of offending against another and risking arrest. He disclosed being well affected by heroin, methylamphetamine, and GHB at the time of the offending. As such, his capacity to problem-solve his dependencies in a non-criminal manner was likely impaired. He might have been more ‘agreeable’ or ‘impressionable’ whilst intoxicated. He noted that his co-offenders talked him into the offending. He stated that he was assaulted the day prior to the offending which left him in a negative emotional state. It’s possible that his drug use, rather than improving his emotional state, amplified his negative emotionality. His attitude towards himself might then have been poor at the time of the incident (e.g. low self-esteem), which could have allowed him to minimise risks to himself in offending (e.g., returning to prison). Conversely, had his drug use, in particular, his methylamphetamine intoxication, enhanced his emotional state, he might have felt more excitable, and confident to offend. I note that the offending involved a group effort. As such, he might have felt more comfortable in accepting the risk involved in offending (e.g., being arrested), with his perception of risk being divided across multiple offenders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

65.   Ideally, Mr Kobeissi would live with his mother upon his release.

66.   He would benefit fortnightly face-to-face counselling with a psychologist in the community. Given he is interpersonally anxious, his psychologist should prioritise rapport and trust building over interventions in the early stages of his counselling. This might protect against early-treatment drop out. His psychologist should equip him with skills to cope with his mother’s failing health (a major risk factor for relapse). Mr Kobeissi should undergo trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TF-CBT), the gold standard in treating posttraumatic stress disorder. He should complete CBT targeting his substance use disorders, and participate in narcotics anonymous (NA) meetings.

67.   I would encourage active monitoring of his drug use (e.g., toxicology screening).

68.   Mr Kobeissi should address his shoulder and back pain (risk factor for relapse) with his general practitioner, and construct and implement a pain management plan. He should also explore the use of psychiatric medication in managing his mental health problems with his GP.

69.   He would benefit from an educational program to build on his reading and writing abilities with subsequent vocational counselling.

70.   Mr Kobeissi should cease all contact with former pro-criminal associates. His psychologist should help him practice rejection these peers in the event they try to reconnect with him.

71. Mr Kobeissi would benefit from joining a local boxing club, which might also help him form new pro-social attachments.”

46. It is at this point that attention should be given to the sentencing assessment report, not least because it contains a more focused overview of your criminal history and previous attempts at rehabilitation and compliance with supervision. The following extracts are particularly relevant:

“Willingness and ability to undertake intervention

•   Mr Kobeissi verbalised his willingness to ability undertake interventions to address social influences, drug use, mental health and violence and aggression in the community.

•   Contrary to this, CSNSW Records indicate a poor history of engagement with Community Corrections and services to address his criminogenic risk factors.

…

Response to supervision

•   Mr Kobeissi was last subject to supervision by Community Corrections by way of a 10-month Parole Order which commenced in May 2024.

•   His engagement was deemed unsatisfactory due to non-compliance with reporting obligations, failure to engage with services and subsequent reoffence.”

47. One of the examples noted in the sentencing assessment report about your poor history of engagement was your discharge from the full-time residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation service run by Wayback Limited. You were admitted to that facility on 10 November 2023 as a condition of the bail ordered by the Supreme Court (in relation to these matters and another matter).  The reason for discharge stated in the Discharge Notice was:

“Although Khalil attended all program activities, his drug use continued to be problematic resulting in him being placed on a month’s Probation on 20 December. On 8 January he was suspended for 16 days due to further breaches. Within 10 minutes of his suspension, he sent [an] abusive text message to a female client, blaming her for his suspension.

For these reasons, he is discharged from Wayback and must vacate the above residence by 3:00pm today.”

48. Ultimately, the author of the pre-sentence report assessed you to be at a high risk of reoffending in accordance with the Level of Service Inventory.

49. I have noted your expressions of remorse (in your sworn oral evidence, in your letter to the Court, and in your engagements with Mr McLean and with the author of the sentencing assessment report). I accept that those expressions are genuine – but, no doubt, you have made them many times before.

50. I earlier mentioned that, apart from your mother, you have little, if any, prosocial influences in your life. In this context, you told the author of the sentencing assessment report that, upon your eventual release, you intended living with your mother. That was advanced by you as a positive factor in your prospects for rehabilitation. However, as was discussed during the sentencing hearing on 2 April 2025, your mother was then seriously ill and there was no evidence that she was willing or capable of having you live with her.

51. On balance, I regard your prospects for rehabilitation as being guarded.

52. The sexual abuse and bullying you were subjected to as a child give rise to Bugmy considerations and, to an extent, reduce your moral culpability for your offending; and, consequently, the full application of general deterrence is, to an extent, reduced. However, specific deterrence is fully engaged. That said, the need to encourage your rehabilitation is also substantially engaged.

53. No sentence for either sequence 4 or sequence 5 other than a term of full-time imprisonment is appropriate.

54. I intend imposing an aggregate sentence.

55. In this regard, you entered early pleas of guilty and a discount of 25 per cent will be applied to each of the indicative sentences underpinning that aggregate sentence.

56. In relation to sequence 4 (and taking into account sequence 3 on the Form 1), except for the discount, the indicative sentence would have been imprisonment for 5 years; after the discount, the indicative sentence is imprisonment for 3 years 9 months.

57. In relation to sequence 5, except for the discount, the indicative sentence would have been imprisonment for 12 months; after the discount, the indicative sentence is imprisonment for 9 months.

58. In the result, for sequences 4 and 5, I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 4 years.

59. The start date for that aggregate sentence is somewhat difficult to fix by reason of the considerations set out in [7] of the Crown’s written submissions (MFI-3). And, to a very considerable extent, there is an interplay as to that start date and whether a finding of special circumstances will be made - and, if so, to what extent.

60. In this context, it is not appropriate in my opinion for there to be total concurrency with the sentence for the offences for which I am concerned and the other periods of imprisonment noted in that paragraph of the Crown’s written submissions. However, it is important, taking into account totality, that a crushing sentence is not imposed on you. And it is also important, in my opinion, that a meaningful period of further supervision on parole is engaged in order to best address your prospects of rehabilitation.

61. Taking these factors into account, I fix a non-parole period of 2 years to date from 14 May 2025 and which will expire on 13 May 2027.

62. I fix a balance of 2 years  to date from 14 May 2027 and which will expire on 13 May 2029.

63. I order that a copy of the report of Mr McLean dated 3 December 2024, and being part of Exhibit 1, goes with the warrant.

**********

Decision last updated: 01 August 2025