R v Mansour - [2019] NSWDC 840

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mansour [2019] NSWDC 840
Hearing dates: 10 October 2019
Decision date: 11 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted.
Special circumstances found – extended parole to assist with counselling and/or treatment in respect of the offender’s anger management and drug abuse issues.
Indicative sentences of imprisonment:
002 + Form 1 (SEQ 001) - 1 year & 7 months
008 – 6 months
010 – 11 months
Aggregate sentence:
Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 2 years with a NPP of 1 year to commence on 5/7/19 and to expire on 4/7/20 and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 5/7/20 and to expire on 4/7/21.
Sequence 003 and 007 are withdrawn and dismissed.
I make orders as per the forfeiture orders handed up in court, signed by me and placed on the court file.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Sentence - assault occasioning actual bodily harm – deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime – From 1 matter - common assault – s166 matter – possess prohibited drug (MDMA) – domestic violence – subjective matters
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Edigarov [2001] NSWCCA 436
The Queen v Kilic [2016] 259 CLR 256
Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Mansour, Joseph
Representation: Solicitors:
Crown: Mr J Jones
Offender: Mr G Goold

File Number(s): 2017/00030018

Judgment

Joseph Mansour appears for sentence in relation to a number of offences. First of all, assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment and there is no relevant standard non‑parole period. The second offence is deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, to wit $3,115, contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment and again there is no relevant standard non‑parole period.
In addition, he asks that when being sentenced in respect of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that a further offence of common assault be taken into account, and in addition, there is a further offence contained on a s 166 certificate to which he has indicated a plea of guilty, being that on 30 January 2017 at St Peters he did have in his possession a prohibited drug, to wit 0.97 grams of 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
The facts are agreed and are as follows.

BACKGROUND

The offender was born on 26 May 1979 and for a number of years had a relationship with Natasha Novak, born 26 January 1994. There was one son of their relationship, who at the time of the offence was two years of age.
In early 2017 they separated for a number of months, Novak living with her parents in Silver Street, St Peters.
On Sunday, 29 January 2017, Novak received a telephone call from Mansour about meeting to discuss their son. Novak…

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 Mansour

Details

AGLC: R v Mansour [2019] NSWDC 840
Case: [2019] NSWDC 840
Decision Date: 11 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mansour involved the defendant, Mansour, who was facing multiple charges, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, common assault, possession of a prohibited drug (MDMA), and domestic violence issues. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the defendant was convicted on several counts. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentencing, taking into account the specific circumstances of each offence and the defendant's background.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the severity of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding each incident. In particular, the court had to consider the aggravating factors of domestic violence and drug abuse, as well as the need for appropriate rehabilitation measures to address these issues. The court also needed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, and to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed.

The court's reasoning in this case was based on the principle of proportionality, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court found that special circumstances were present, as the defendant had issues with anger management and drug abuse, which contributed to the commission of the offences. As a result, the court decided to impose an extended parole sentence to facilitate counselling and treatment for these issues. The court also imposed indicative sentences of imprisonment for each offence, which were then aggregated to form the total sentence of two years, with a non-parole period of one year.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of the defendant on all charges, imposition of the aggregated sentence with the specified non-parole period, and the withdrawal and dismissal of certain charges. Additionally, the court made orders for the forfeiture of property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, as well as the issuance of appropriate rehabilitation orders to assist the defendant in addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the commission of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

Special circumstances found – extended parole to assist with counselling and/or treatment in respect of the offender’s anger management and drug abuse issues.

Indicative sentences of imprisonment:

002 + Form 1 (SEQ 001) - 1 year & 7 months

008 – 6 months

010 – 11 months

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 2 years with a NPP of 1 year to commence on 5/7/19 and to expire on 4/7/20 and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 5/7/20 and to expire on 4/7/21.

Sequence 003 and 007 are withdrawn and dismissed.

I make orders as per the forfeiture orders handed up in court, signed by me and placed on the court file.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mansour [2019] NSWDC 840
Hearing dates:	10 October 2019
Decision date:	11 October 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted. Special circumstances found – extended parole to assist with counselling and/or treatment in respect of the offender’s anger management and drug abuse issues. Indicative sentences of imprisonment: 002 + Form 1 (SEQ 001) - 1 year & 7 months 008 – 6 months 010 – 11 months Aggregate sentence: Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 2 years with a NPP of 1 year to commence on 5/7/19 and to expire on 4/7/20 and a balance of term of 1 year to commence on 5/7/20 and to expire on 4/7/21. Sequence 003 and 007 are withdrawn and dismissed. I make orders as per the forfeiture orders handed up in court, signed by me and placed on the court file.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence - assault occasioning actual bodily harm – deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime – From 1 matter - common assault – s166 matter – possess prohibited drug (MDMA) – domestic violence – subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Edigarov [2001] NSWCCA 436 The Queen v Kilic [2016] 259 CLR 256 Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Mansour, Joseph
Representation:	Solicitors: Crown: Mr J Jones Offender: Mr G Goold
File Number(s):	2017/00030018