R v Lo

[2000] NSWSC 714

Reported Decision: 115 A Crim R 53

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:	R v LO [2000] NSWSC 714 revised - 21/07/2000
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Criminal
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 70009/00
HEARING DATE(S):	06/07/00
JUDGMENT DATE:	21 July 2000
PARTIES :	REGINA v Wai Hung Anthony LO
JUDGMENT OF:	Barr J at 1

COUNSEL :	Crown: W Robinson QC Offender: GJ Stanton
SOLICITORS:	Crown: SE O'Connor Offender: Jack Rigg
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - sentencing - murder and conspiracy to murder - whether in worst category of cases - whether offender entitled to lesser sentence for assistance to authorities.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 s 19A. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21, s 23, s 32, s 61.
CASES CITED:	R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
DECISION:	See paragraphs 56 and 57.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

Friday, 21 July 2000

70009/00 - REGINA v Wai Hung Anthony LO

SENTENCE
1   HIS HONOUR: The offender, Wai Hung Anthony Lo, has pleaded guilty to the murder on 20 February 1998 of Albert Brikha and to the conspiracy with Toufic Zreika and Hesham Turkmani on 25 March 1998 to murder Raphael Bessounian. The offender has asked the Court in sentencing to take account under the provisions of s 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the following offences -

1. the supply on 30 November 1998 at Roselands of two tablets of Nexus to undercover police;

2. the supply on 16 December 1998 at Miranda of two tablets of methylamphetamine;
3. the supply between 28 January and 24 February 1999 to undercover police at Sydney of methylamphetamine three times within thirty days;
4. the possession on 3 February 1999 at Sydney of a pump-action shotgun;
5. the supply on 8 March 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands to undercover police of twenty tablets of amphetamine and ketamine;
6. the supply on 24 March 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands to undercover police of twenty tablets of amphetamine and ketamine;
7. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Liverpool of fourteen rohypnol tablets;
8. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of an imitation Berretta pistol;
9. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of an imitation of a Sig Sauer pistol;
10. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of a Cobra spear gun;
11. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of twelve tablets of amphetamine; and
12. the supply on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of 3.99 grams of methylamphetamine.

2   The offender is twenty-nine years old. He began working as a panel beater and completed his apprenticeship in 1993. Eventually he set up his own business. The business did not do well and he began to supplement his income by working as a security guard at nightclubs in Sydney. As he did so he encountered certain people he had met during the course of his work as a panel beater, including Colin Kaddour, “Big” Hicham Kaddour, Hesham Turkmani and his brother Bassam Turkmani. The offender had previously known those men as tow truck operators, but he realised that they were also concerned with drugs. Hesham Turkmani supplied him with a small quantity of an illegal drug and the offender began selling drugs supplied by Hesham and Bassam Turkmani and Colin Kaddour. He bought and sold on credit and found himself unable to pay his debts to his suppliers. He also owed between $50,000 and $60,000 to credit providers.

3   Albert Brikha was to give evidence against a man called John Assadourian, who was to be tried for shooting at Mr Brikha with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Kaddour family were associates of Assadourian in the tow truck industry. They offered Mr Brikha money to try to persuade him not to give evidence against Assadourian but he refused those offers. The trial of Assadourian was imminent and they decided that the only way to stop Mr Brikha giving evidence was to have him killed.

4   They knew that the offender could not pay them what he owed. There was a meeting between Colin Kaddour and Bassam Turkmani at the offender’s residence. One of them said to the offender words to the effect of, “Pay up or do a job for us and don’t worry about the debt”. The offender replied, “Okay, if that’s what I have to do”. He thought that he was going to be asked to sell more drugs or to threaten someone or to kidnap someone they had previously spoken about. It was explained to him that it would be a murder. He decided to do as he had been asked.

5   Not long after Christmas 1997 those instructing the offender planted a semi-automatic pistol and silencer in a place where he would find it on one of his rounds. He took the pistol and test-fired it. They supplied him with Mr Brikha’s name and address. The offender had a good idea that the killing was to be part of a fight between tow truck operators.

6   He made elaborate preparations. He telephoned Mr Brikha’s house and falsely reported a breakdown in a certain place. He concealed himself and waited for Mr Brikha to arrive at that place and observed him closely as he did so. That was so that he would remember his face when the time came to shoot him and not have to resort to the use of photographs. Two days before the murder he disguised himself and went to Mr Brikha’s house. He tried to entice Mr Brikha into his car by offering to take him to another pretended breakdown. His intention was to shoot Mr Brikha in the car. Mr Brikha was suspicious and refused to go.

7   The offender decided to shoot Mr Brikha as he came home from work one night. He falsely reported a domestic disturbance in the street in which Mr Brikha’s house was situated so as to ascertain how long the police would take to respond to a call for help.

8   He chose the day to carry out the murder and telephoned Bassam Turkmani to warn him that he thought that he would shoot Mr Brikha that night. That was so that Turkmani could arrange an alibi.

9   On 20 February 1998 the offender had his girlfriend drive him to the vicinity of Mr Brikha’s house. He had previously fully loaded the pistol and had wiped all the cartridges with methylated spirits as instructed to remove fingerprints. He concealed himself in bushes near the garage of the house to which Mr Brikha was due to return. He screwed the silencer onto the pistol and cocked it. As Mr Brikha returned home and walked up the driveway towards the house the offender discharged the weapon at him at least four times. He ran away and his girlfriend drove him away from the area.

10   Two days later Colin Kaddour and a colleague Toufic Zreika gave him $10,000, took the pistol from him and dismantled it. They and Bassam Turkmani removed the pistol parts.

11   In July 1996 Raphael Bessounian met Zreika and another man in Campsie over the sale of drugs. There was a disagreement and Zreika and the other man shot Bessounian four times. He survived. Zreika was charged over the shooting and Bessounian was to be a witness in the case against him. Zreika threatened Bessounian that he would be stopped from giving evidence, but Bessounian was not intimidated. Zreika decided to kill him to stop him giving evidence.

12   The offender was a friend of Bessounian but knew nothing of his dispute with Zreika and his colleagues. Early in 1997 he arranged for Hesham Turkmani to attend his panel beating shop and supply drugs to a purchaser. Bessounian happened to be the purchaser. When Bessounian saw Turkmani he quickly departed and the offender realised that the two men disliked each other. In response to his inquiry Turkmani told him that Bessounian tried to cheat him and that “we shot him a couple of times”. Bessounian later confirmed that there was bad blood between them and that they had shot him.

13   Bessounian was a supplier of stolen mobile telephones, and the offender offered to buy some from him. The offender told Hesham Turkmani that he could supply them to him and Turkmani was interested in knowing the source. The offender told him. Turkmani and Zreika later came to the offender’s residence and one of them asked him to help them kill Bessounian. The offender refused. He refused again a couple of days later. Two more days later they asked him a third time and he asked what was in it for him. Turkmani said that the contract was for $5,000 and the offender refused. On the same or a later day he refused that offer a second time. He said, “It’s got to be more than that”.

14   He began to think about how much money he owed his suppliers. On 25 March 1998 the two men again visited the offender and Turkmani said that they would cancel a certain amount from his debt if he would help them lure Bessounian so that he could be shot. The offender agreed. He was told to call Bessounian and arrange for him to meet him somewhere on the pretext that he would purchase stolen mobile telephones from him. The offender telephoned Bessounian and asked him to meet him at his residence at a certain time. Bessounian fell into the trap. He drove to the vicinity of the offender’s residence and telephoned him. The offender said that he would soon be with Bessounian. Instead he telephoned Hesham Turkmani and told him that Bessounian had arrived. The offender and his girlfriend then went to the casino to establish an alibi.

15   Bessounian was shot by Zreika as he waited in his car. He received six wounds, one to his right upper arm, one to his right forearm, one to his right wrist, one to his right cheek, one to the centre of his chest and one to the left side of the chest. He was taken to hospital, underwent three surgical operations and was not discharged until 18 April 1998. He suffered a comminuted fracture of the right radius and a fracture of one of the right metacarpals. He suffered transient neuropraxia of the right posterior interosseous nerve. He suffered circulatory collapse due to a left haemopneumothorax and had to be taken into cardiac intensive care. A bullet was removed from the right axilla. The report of Dr Winlaw 31 May 1999 shows that the injuries were life-threatening.

16   On 1 April 1999 the offender was tricked by an undercover police operative into revealing the part he had played in the murder. The conversation of the two men was lawfully recorded on tape and a typewritten transcript was made. He told the operative how he had planned the shooting for two weeks, how he had obtained the weapon and the ammunition and how he had tested and prepared them, how he had contrived to see Mr Brikha’s face, how he had attempted to entice him into the car to shoot him, how he had timed a police visit to the same street, how he had observed the movements of Mr Brikha, how he had considered the various places in which he might shoot him and how he had decided that the best place was at his house when he returned from work. Although he gave a long and detailed description of these matters he could not remember the name of the street in which Mr Brikha lived, and arrangements were made for him to point out the house. On 7 April 1999 he and the operative drove to Mr Brikha’s house at Liverpool and the offender pointed it out. He showed the operative the bushes where he had lain in wait for Mr Brikha and from which he had shot him. He told the operative things that only the gunman could have known.

17   He was arrested on the same day and charged with the murder of Mr Brikha and with conspiring to murder Bessounian.

18   Police had obtained a number of statements from Bessounian in which he described how the offender had lured him to the street outside the offender’s residence and how he had been shot there. Bessounian told the police that he had recognised the voice of Zreika as he shot him. Telephone records showed a large number of calls made from the offender’s mobile telephone to a number of mobile telephones to which members of the Kaddour and Turkmani families had access.

19   There was a very strong case against the offender on both charges. He was taken before a magistrate on 8 April 1999. The case was adjourned and bail was refused, and the same thing happened on a number of other occasions. The offender had legal advice and must quickly have realised the high probability of conviction on both charges and the very serious consequences which would result. No doubt on legal advice, he attended the New South Wales Crime Commission four times in October 1999 and made a number of statements. He undertook to assist the Crime Commission in its investigation and to give evidence in the prosecution of others concerned with the murder and the conspiracy to murder.

20   On 18 January 2000 he pleaded guilty of both offences before a magistrate and was committed to this Court for sentence.

21   It was submitted on behalf of the offender that these offences, or at least the murder of Mr Brikha, did not fall into the worst category of offences bearing in mind that the offender was a young man when he committed the offences, that his life was out of control, that he was in debt and living in an unfamiliar world and was not a hardened criminal.

22   I do not accept these submissions. Notwithstanding his fairly young age, the offender was well experienced in his unlawful businesses and knew well the people with whom he was dealing. His approach to the offers was that of a businessman.

23   In my opinion the criminality of the part played by the offender in the murder of Mr Brikha constituted an offence which fell into the worst category of cases. There are several reasons for this. The crime was planned and executed entirely without anger and without mercy. The offender had no quarrel with Mr Brikha. He did not even know him. He murdered him simply for money. The law has long regarded contract killings as falling into the worst category of murders.

24   The murder was meticulously planned over a long time. The offender took steps to find out what Mr Brikha looked like and to understand his pattern of movements so that he could be sure to kill the right man as quickly and efficiently as possible. He took careful steps to get away and avoid detection.

25   The fact that the murder of Mr Brikha is the first offence of which the offender has been convicted does not in all the circumstances entitle the offender to leniency. Ordinarily a first offender may be dealt with leniently as having led a previously blameless life, but this offender was a man of markedly bad character. His efforts to make an honest living having failed, he entered into a life of systematic crime and appears to have subsisted in large measure through the purchase and sale of illegal drugs and stolen goods.

26   In setting the trap for Bessounian the offender involved himself in what was intended to be his second contract killing. Again, he had no reason other than money to want his victim dead. On the contrary, he was a friend and did business with Bessounian from which he presumably profited. He refused early offers of money because they were not high enough. The process of negotiation took a few days and the offender participated in a hard-headed manner. Finally he agreed to play a part in return for the cancellation of his debt. He coolly made the arrangements that he fully expected would result in the death of Bessounian. He did so in a manner that provided him, he thought, with an alibi.

27   In sentencing for conspiracy the Court may take into account in assessing the level of criminality whether the crime agreed upon was committed or attempted. In fact the intention failed and Bessounian did not die, but that was a matter of good fortune. As it was, Bessounian suffered serious and life-threatening injuries. The offender’s part in the attempt to kill him was carried out coolly, efficiently and completely. The failure to kill Bessounian resulted from the actions of Zreika, not the offender. In my opinion the fact that Bessounian did not die does not take the offender’s criminality out of the worst category of offences of its kind.

28   Of the offences the offender has asked the Court to take into account, those occurring between 30 November 1998 and 24 March 1999 resulted from transactions between the offender and undercover operatives during the ordinary course of his drug business. The six offences committed on 7 April 1999 resulted from searches of the offender and his premises carried out by investigating police officers after his arrest. They reflect the offender’s serious and systematic pursuit of his criminal enterprises and would have attracted a substantial total effective sentence by themselves.

29 S 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act provides that a court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person who is convicted of murder if the court is satisfied that the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence. Subs (3) provides that nothing in subs (1) affects s 21(1). S 21 (1) provides that if by any provision of an Act an offender is made liable to imprisonment for life (as the offender is on the first count, by virtue of s 19A Crimes Act 1900) a court may nevertheless impose a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term.

30   In my opinion the facts of the murder and the conspiracy ought ordinarily to attract the maximum sentence, namely imprisonment for life and twenty-five years respectively. The substantial question that arises is whether the assistance offered and given by the offender is sufficient to entitle him to receive less than the maximum penalty for each offence.

31   Before going to the details of the offender’s assistance I should say something about his pleas of guilty. A plea of guilty is capable of affecting a sentence for two reasons. The first is that it is ordinarily proper to encourage by way of a reduction in sentence the saving of community resources which results from such a plea. The community is saved time and money and the defendant receives a corresponding benefit. However, I am of the view that the objective seriousness of these two offences was so great that, standing alone, the pleas of guilty would be insufficient to remove these offences from the worst category of offences.

32   In a practical sense, however, the value to the community of the pleas of guilty may be considered together with the value to the community of the assistance the offender has given and promised.

33   The second way in which a plea of guilty may sound in a sentence is as evidence of remorse. I am firmly of the view that the offender’s pleas of guilty are no evidence of remorse and I am satisfied that he is not remorseful. It is not only that it would be too much to expect that after a studied and systematic life of crime he might suddenly see the error of his ways and repent. No doubt such a thing could happen, but there is no evidence that persuades me that it has happened here. The offender did not even tell the Court that he was remorseful. If further evidence were needed of his cold-heartedness, this passage from the tape recording made on 1 April 1999 would be enough. The offender was speaking about the occasion on which he went to Mr Brikha’s house and tried to entice him into the car. Mr Brikha’s wife and children were present.

Operative: So why didn’t you do it there and then?

Offender: On the spot that day..

Operative: Yeah.

Offender: ..in front of him?

Operative: Yeah.

Offender: It wasn’t viable.

Operative: Oh right.

Offender: Because if I had done him I would have had to do his wife and his kids and everything.

Operative: Huh-huh.

Offender: And it’s my principle I don’t do that.

Operative: Right.

Offender: Unless you were gunna pay for it. And after I saw the fuckin’ Australia’s Most Wanted his wife’s crying, I really fuckin’ felt bad. Fuckin’ human nature but still a job’s a job, someone’s gotta do it.

34   I conclude from the circumstances I have summarised that when he went to the Crime Commission in October 1999 the offender expected, whether he pleaded guilty or not, that he would be convicted of the offences with which he had been charged and very probably receive the maximum prescribed sentences and that he reasoned that the only way in which he might receive lesser sentences was to offer and give such assistance as he could to the investigating and prosecuting authorities. I do not intend by putting the matter in this way to suggest that the offers of assistance were less than genuine, but simply that for the offender they represented a calculated attempt to do whatever he could to improve his position. The arrangements into which he entered required him to plead guilty, of course.

35   On 21 October 1999 the offender provided a statement which dealt in detail with his work and criminal history, with particular reference to his dealing in drugs and his relations with those who wanted Mr Brikha and Bessounian killed and about the detail of the arrangements made for the murder of Mr Brikha. On 8 November 1999 he made a further statement setting out the detail of the arrangements made to lure Bessounian to his death. He identified records of calls between mobile telephones and told the Crime Commission investigators as much as he knew about the owners and users of the several telephones involved. Altogether he attended the Crime Commission four times. He gave sworn evidence at a Crime Commission hearing.

36   On 8 November 1999 he was interviewed by officers of the New South Wales Police Service and made an induced statement setting out the detail of the part he had played in the attempt to lure Bessounian to his death.

37   Zreika had been arrested on 5 June 1999 and made an induced statement at the New South Wales Crime Commission on 24 November 1999, giving details about the Brikha murder and the parts played by himself, the offender and others. However, there is no evidence that he made any statement about the plan to murder Bessounian.

38   As a result of evidence provided by the offender and others Colin Kaddour and Bassam Turkmani were arrested and charged with soliciting to the murder of Mr Brikha. Their committal hearings are part heard in the Local Court. The offender has given or will give evidence at that hearing and will give evidence at the trial if Kaddour and Turkmani are committed for trial.

39   Zreika was charged with wounding Bessounian with intent to murder on 30 July 1996, with wounding him with intent to murder on 25 March 1998 and with threatening a witness. The offender gave evidence at Zreika’s trial in the District Court, limited, of course, to the events of 25 March 1998. Zreika was found guilty and sentenced to a series of long periods of imprisonment.

40   Hesham Turkmani was charged with soliciting to the murder of Bessounian and with being an accessory before a shooting with intent to murder Bessounian. He was discharged by a Local Court magistrate on 26 May 2000 and the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether to file an ex officio indictment. If he is tried it is expected that the offender will give evidence.

41 S 23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides that a court may impose a lesser penalty than it would otherwise impose having regard to the degree to which the offender has assisted or undertaken to assist law enforcement authorities in the prevention, detection or investigation of, or in proceedings relating to the offence concerned or any other offence. Subs (2) requires the Court to consider a number of matters in deciding whether to impose a lesser penalty and, if so, the nature and extent of the penalty it imposes. Subs (3) provides that a lesser penalty must not be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence.

42   I will deal only with those considerations required by subs (2) which appear to have particular relevance to this case. Two such matters appear to favour the Crown in its argument that no lesser penalty than the maximum should be imposed. They are the effect of the offence on the victim or victims and on the family of the victim or victims and whether the assistance relates to the offence for which the offender is to be sentenced or for some other offence.

43   Although the effect of a murder upon the family of the murdered person may not be taken into account in fixing the sentence, it may be given weight in the consideration of and may possibly stand in the way of a lesser penalty for assistance to the authorities. That is the combined effect of R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 and s 23(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

44   These offences had a very serious effect upon the partner and children of Mr Brikha and upon Bessounian. A victim impact statement was tendered on behalf of Ms Michelle Louise Escott, the partner of Mr Brikha. She was at home with her children when the offender killed Mr Brikha. She heard the shots and ran outside. He died in her arms. She went into shock and could not stop screaming. She cannot forget what happened. She is being treated for depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome has been diagnosed. The couple had three children. The two eldest, a girl and boy, miss their father and are very distressed at what has happened. The youngest child was only little when Mr Brikha was killed and has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. He has communication and behavioural problems which require close and special attention.

45   The family have lost the financial support that Mr Brikha provided and live on income from Social Security. Life is consequently very difficult in view of the special needs of the youngest child. Ms Escott has sold the house where she, Mr Brikha and the children lived because she could not face bringing up the children in that place.

46   I have already summarised the injuries received by Bessounian and their effect. He was badly hurt and his life was threatened. Fortunately there is no evidence of any serious permanent incapacity.

47   These consequences are all very serious.

48   Sometimes offenders assist investigating and prosecuting authorities not only in relation to matter with which they have been charged but with unrelated matters as well. The preparedness of an offender to do so is capable, generally speaking, of leading to very high rates of reduction from the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. Here, one need say no more than that the assistance related only to the offences with which the offender himself was charged. That is not to play down the value of it, however.

49   So far as is relevant to this case, the remaining matters to be taken into account appear to favour the offender. The first three may be considered together. They are the significance and usefulness of the assistance, taking into account any evaluation by the authorities, the truthfulness, completeness and reliability of information given or evidence provided and the nature and extent of the assistance or promise of assistance. A letter was received from P Bradley, Commissioner, New South Wales Crime Commission dealing with the assistance given by the offender. It shows that the arrest of Colin Kaddour and Hesham Turkmani resulted directly from the information provided by the offender. It shows that the Crime Commission has assessed as truthful the information the offender has provided. The letter also shows that the offender was largely responsible for the successful prosecution of Zreika. That statement, of course, must be taken as being confined to the shooting of Bessounian on 25 March 1998. The several accounts he has given appear to be complete.

50   The Court must consider whether the offender will suffer harsher custodial conditions as a consequence of his assistance and any injury or danger to him or his family. He had a partner at the time of these events. The Court was informed that the relationship is not likely to subsist for long in view of the substantial custodial sentence the offender is facing. There appears to be no danger to the offender’s partner. However, it is quite apparent that, having thrown in his lot with criminals and having informed upon them, he will face danger of injury or death for the duration of his time in custody and perhaps afterwards as well. He will need to take advantage of any protection which may be afforded him in the correctional system, but that will make his service of his sentences harder because it will deny to him the full run of work and other opportunities within the correctional system.

51   The final matter for consideration is any likelihood that the offender will commit further offences after being released from custody. All that it is necessary to say about that is that the offender will have to spend such a long time in custody that it is impossible to predict how he might behave on his release.

52   It seems to me that notwithstanding the serious effect upon the persons affected by these offences, particularly upon the family of the late Mr Brikha, the offender’s assistance and promise of further assistance must be given very great weight in view of their obvious completeness and of the positive results they have already yielded and perhaps will yield, especially in view of the danger the offender will be in for the rest of his life and the harsher sentence he will serve as a result.

53 It was submitted on behalf of the Crown, relying on s 23(3) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, that any penalty less than the maximum prescribed for each of these offences would be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences. I am unable to accept that submission. The general availability of lesser sentences for offenders who give valuable assistance and thereby place themselves in significant personal danger is an important feature of the administration of criminal justice and results in substantial benefit to the community in the solution of crime and the successful prosecution of offenders who would otherwise go free. Notwithstanding the very serious nature of the offences, it seems to me that the assistance given and offered, and the quality of it, are enough to entitle the offender to sentences less than the maximum prescribed. The reduction which I shall apply to the sentences will be tempered by the serious effect of the offences on those concerned.

54   Although the two principal offences resulted from independent arrangements, they were temporally close and were intimately connected with the offender’s criminal enterprises. It is therefore appropriate to impose substantially concurrent sentences. However, it is necessary to make them partly cumulative in order to reflect the totality of the offender’s criminality.

55   The partial accumulation of the sentences makes it necessary to impose a non-parole period for the murder sentence which is less than three-quarters of the sentence. The adjustment I have made produces a total sentence for both offences the non-parole period of which is three-quarters. There is no other circumstance that requires the shortening of the non-parole period of the murder sentence. It is not appropriate to set a non-parole period for the conspiracy sentence because it will be served wholly within the non-parole period of the murder sentence.

56   Wai Hung Anthony Lo, for conspiring to murder Raphael Bessounian I sentence you to imprisonment for eighteen years commencing on 7 April 1999 and expiring on 6 April 2017. I decline to fix a non-parole period.

57 For the murder of Albert Brikha I sentence you to imprisonment for thirty-two years commencing on 7 April 2003 and expiring on 6 April 2035. I fix a non-parole period of twenty-three years which will expire on 6 April 2026. You will then be eligible for release on parole. In sentencing you I take into account under the provisions of s 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the charges listed in the Schedule provided under that section.

**********

Last Modified: 09/26/2000