R v Masri

Case [2025] NSWDC 59


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:
Mr B Murray (the offender)
Mr D Noll (the Crown)

Solicitors:
Mr L Abu-Ali (the offender)
Mr S Rose (the Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/199050
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. On 15 July 2024 the offender pleaded not guilty to one Count on an Indictment as follows:-

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Exhibit A at the trial comprised the following agreed facts pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act 1995:-

  1. 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].

  2. 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.

  3. At the rear of the property were two other buildings; a detached garage and another brick building.

  4. 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.

  5. The person then forced open a closed, aluminium sliding door at the back to gain access to the main building.

  6. The person then spread petrol in three areas of the main building and set the petrol alight.

  7. The building was severely damaged by the fire, including the tiled roof collapsing into the building.

  8. CCTV footage from a camera across the road showed…

Continue reading R v Masri

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Masri [2025] NSWDC 59
Case
[2025] NSWDC 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the prosecution of the defendant, Masri, who was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling and committing an act of arson. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The prosecution alleged that Masri had unlawfully entered a residential property and set fire to it, causing significant damage.

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.