R v Marwan Jubraeel - [2014] NSWSC 838

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Marwan JUBRAEEL [2014] NSWSC 838
Hearing dates: 10-14 February 2014, 18-21 February 2014, 24-27 February 2014, 4 March 2014, 30 May 2014
Decision date: 23 June 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 years, commencing 11 January 2012 and concluding 10 January 2024, and a balance of term being a further 5 years, expiring on 10 January 2029.
First eligible for release on parole on 10 January 2024.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - jury verdict - extended joint criminal enterprise - no issue of principle - parity - sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Graham Keys Smith [2012] NSWSC 1565
R v Neramsn Safar [2014] NSWSC 376
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Marwan JUBRAEEL (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
J Dwyer (Crown)
J Spencer (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
George Sten & Co (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/10783
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Remarks on Sentence

HIS HONOUR: A jury has found Marwan Jubraeel guilty of the charge of murder, related to the death of Colin Wick. Criminal culpability for the murder depended on the principles of extended joint criminal enterprise. It is necessary to outline Mr Jubraeel's involvement in the crime.

The Facts

On 23 July 2011, Mr Jubraeel and two others travelled to Chatham Street, Canley Heights, in a white Toyota Corolla. The three offenders went to 25 Duke Street, Canley Heights. Each was dressed in dark clothing. Each was wearing a balaclava and gloves to hide his identity. One of the other offenders was armed.

The first time Mr Jubraeel became aware of the presence of a gun was when he first saw it. I am not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Jubraeel was aware of the presence of the gun before it was drawn by the shooter, which was just prior to the shooting.

I am satisfied, consistent with the jury's verdict, that he was aware of the gun at a time that would have allowed him to withdraw from the original crime, which he did not.

The offenders banged on the double-glass sliding door at 25 Duke Street several times. The deceased ran from his bedroom to investigate the source of the noise, followed by Eleanor Attard. The deceased reached over a lounge to pull back the curtain to reveal the window (or to look outside).

On the other side of the glass doors were the three co-offenders, including Mr Jubraeel. Almost immediately upon drawing the curtain, a co-offender discharged the weapon once, shooting the defendant in the chest. The weapon was aimed, either before the curtain was drawn or when the deceased commenced to draw it.

The bullet pierced the deceased's aorta and right lung, exited through his back and lodged in a wall in the lounge room.

The…

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 Marwan Jubraeel

Details

AGLC: R v Marwan Jubraeel [2014] NSWSC 838
Case: [2014] NSWSC 838
Decision Date: 23 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the sentencing of Marwan Jubraeel, who was convicted of murder. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on Jubraeel following his conviction. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed and whether the trial judge had erred in any way that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, given the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. The court was also required to determine if there was any error in the trial judge's application of the principles of sentencing for murder within the context of an extended joint criminal enterprise. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the sentence was proportionate to sentences imposed in similar cases.

The court found that there was no issue of principle that would warrant a reduction in the sentence. It was held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and aligned with the principles of parity in sentencing for similar crimes. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the role Jubraeel played in the extended joint criminal enterprise. The High Court emphasised that the trial judge had carefully considered all relevant factors and applied the correct legal principles in arriving at the sentence. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders