R v Konaraki

Case [2018] NSWDC 521


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Konaraki [2018] NSWDC 521
Hearing dates: 9 November 2018
Date of orders: 11 December 2018
Decision date: 11 December 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

ICO for 18 months, including 600 hours community service.

Catchwords:

CRIME SENTENCE

  Offender pleaded guilty (late) to taking and detaining a male victim whilst in company with four others. Of three offenders involved in the same offence, this offender was first to plead guilty. Offender also offered assistance to the authorities. Total discount allowed at 25%. Young female 20 at the time of offence, 23 years at sentence. Very minor role in offence. No prior conviction. Good work history. Very low risk of reoffending.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96
Category:Sentence
Parties: Jade Konaraki, the Crown
Representation:

Counsel:

 

R. A. Kimbell (Crown)

  P. Murphy (Offender)
File Number(s): 2016/00109168
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

  1. HIS HONOUR: Jade Konaraki stands for sentence as a consequence of having pleaded guilty to a charge that on 17 December 2015 at Newington in this State, while in the company of Aws Mohammed Hussein, Rosalene Keshishian, and two unknown males, did detain Jacob Aboeid without his consent with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage. That is an offence contrary to s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

  2. At the time of the offence the offender was aged 20 years. The victim, Jacob Aboeid, met Rosalene Keshishian in early 2015 and they began a short relationship. In July 2015 Keshishian and the victim were discussing money inside the victim’s vehicle at La Perouse. That vehicle was a Mercedes Benz motor car. Keshishian decided to obtain a loan on behalf of the victim as the victim did not have a clean credit rating. Approval was granted by the Commonwealth Bank for the loan to Keshishian. On 30 July 2015 the victim and Ms Keshishian attended various automatic teller machines withdrawing $20,000 in cash which was then given to the victim. The victim agreed to pay to Ms Keshishian $500 per month in order to repay the loan. Over the ensuing few months the victim paid part of the loan monies back to Keshishian.

  3. On or about 3 December 2015 the victim received calls from Keshishian suggesting that they meet. They agreed to meet on 17 December 2015. However text messages on Keshishian’s phone indicate that she was upset with the victim for his not having paid her the loan repayments in full and indicating that the amount owed was sufficient to pay off the loan that she had on her own car. Keshishian therefore set up a meeting with the victim and planned with Mohammed Sadiq, who was known as Moh, to take the victim’s money and the victim’s car. On 17 December 2015 there was an exchange of text messages between Keshishian and Moh. Part of that exchange…

Continue reading R v Konaraki

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Konaraki [2018] NSWDC 521
Case
[2018] NSWDC 521
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Konaraki involved an offender who pleaded guilty to taking and detaining a male victim in the company of four others. This offender was the first among three involved in the same offence to plead guilty and also offered assistance to the authorities. The offender, a young female aged 20 at the time of the offence and 23 at the time of sentencing, played a very minor role in the offence, had no prior convictions, and had a good work history with a very low risk of reoffending. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the offender’s minor role, the plea discount, and her offer of assistance to the authorities.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to give the plea discount, the level of culpability given the offender's minor role, and the potential for rehabilitation considering her background and offer of assistance. The court needed to balance these factors against the seriousness of the offence, which involved taking and detaining a victim. The offender's age, lack of prior convictions, and personal circumstances were also relevant in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court recognised the offender's minor role and her offer of assistance to the authorities, which warranted a discount. However, it also considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Ultimately, the court decided that an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) of 18 months, including 600 hours of community service, was appropriate. This sentence aimed to address the offender's culpability while also promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court ordered an ICO for 18 months, including 600 hours of community service, reflecting a balanced approach that considered the offender's minor role, her offer of assistance, and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

ICO for 18 months, including 600 hours community service.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.