District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Masri [2025] NSWDC 59 Hearing dates: 14 February 2025 Date of orders: 14 March 2025 Decision date: 14 March 2025 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Custodial sentence. For orders see [70]
Catchwords: Break and enter and commit serious indictable offence; arson;
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v McMahon; R v Robb [2017] NSWDC 476
Category: Sentence Parties: Omar Masri (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr B Murray (the offender)
Mr D Noll (the Crown)
Mr L Abu-Ali (the offender)
Mr S Rose (the Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/199050 Publication restriction: Nil.
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
On 15 July 2024 the offender pleaded not guilty to one Count on an Indictment as follows:-
On the 26th day of June 2019 at Padstow in the State of New South Wales, did break and enter the building of Chang Huang at 6 Gwandalan Road, Padstow and did commit a serious indictable offence therein, namely, intentionally destroy property by means of fire.
-
On 23 July 2024 the jury returned a verdict of guilty. This is an offence pursuant to s112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period prescribed.
-
The only issue in the trial was the identity of the person who committed the offence. The Crown relied on a circumstantial case, and the following are facts to be derived from the jury verdict for which they must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence was that it was the offender who committed the offence.
-
Exhibit A at the trial comprised the following agreed facts pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act 1995:-
The business Kim’s Kindy was a long day Child Care centre operating at 6 Gwandalan Road, Padstow. [It was owned by John Huang and Sally Chen who worked as carers at the premises].
The main building of Kim’s Kindy was a converted three-bedroom residential building constructed with timber framing and cladding, the front of which generally faced south to the street.
At the rear of the property were two other buildings; a detached garage and another brick building.
On the night of 26 June 2019, whilst the centre was closed and unoccupied, a person entered the premises by forcing open a locked gate on the eastern side of the building which gave them access to the backyard of the premises.
The person then forced open a closed, aluminium sliding door at the back to gain access to the main building.
The person then spread petrol in three areas of the main building and set the petrol alight.
The building was severely damaged by the fire, including the tiled roof collapsing into the building.
CCTV footage from a camera across the road showed…
Continue reading R v Masri
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Masri [2025] NSWDC 59
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether Masri had indeed broken and entered the property, and if so, whether he had committed the serious indictable offence of arson. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate sentence if Masri was found guilty of the charges.
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established that Masri had broken into the property and set fire to it. It was determined that the act of arson constituted a serious indictable offence, warranting a custodial sentence. The court took into account the severity of the crime, the damage caused, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Consequently, Masri was found guilty of the charges and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
The court ordered that Masri be remanded in custody and directed that he serve a custodial sentence as determined by the court. This decision was based on the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from further harm. The court's ruling also emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions when it comes to serious criminal offences such as arson.
Orders
Orders of the court
Custodial sentence. For orders see [70]
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.