R v Mihai

Case [2020] NSWDC 727


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mihai [2020] NSWDC 727
Hearing dates: 2 November 2020
Date of orders: 20 November 2020
Decision date: 20 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:

A head sentence of 3 years 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 and a half months to commence on 10 August 2018.

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Violent Offences – Assault causing death – “one punch” legislation – "bitch slap"

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:

Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105

R v Grenenger [1999] NSWSC 380

R v Hyatt [2000] NSWSC 774

R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120

R v Matthews [2015] NSWSC 49

R v O’Hare [2003] NSWSC 652

RvPalu [2002] NSWCCA 381; (2002) 134 A Crim R 174

RvQutami [2001] NSWCCA 353, (2001) 127 A Crim R 369

R v Risteski [1999] NSWSC 1248

R v Smith (2008) NSWSC 201

The Queen vOlbrich [1999] HCA 54;199 CLR 270

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Emil MIHAI (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C. Taylor (Crown)
Mr L. Fernandez (Offender)

Solicitors:
Ms. C. Kirkpatrick (ODPP)
Mr. S. Ingold (Nyman Gibson Miralis)
File Number(s): 2018/00215243

Judgment

BACKGROUND

  1. Emil Mihai appears for sentence following his plea of guilty to a single charge of assault causing death. Such an offence contravenes section 25A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

  2. The offender was originally charged with the manslaughter of the deceased, Traian (Troy) Dihel, with an alternative count included in the original Indictment of assault causing the death of Troy Dihel.

  3. On 3 August 2020 the offender was arraigned pursuant to that Indictment. He entered pleas of not guilty with respect to both the primary charge of manslaughter and to the alternative count of assault causing death. Prior to the empanelling of a jury, rulings were sought with respect to the admissibility of a number of aspects of evidence proposed to be led by the Crown.

  4. Following some of the pre-trial matters being the subject of rulings the offender was re-arraigned at his request on 10 August 2020 on which occasion he maintained his plea of not guilty to the charge of manslaughter but entered a plea of guilty to the alternative count under s.25A(1). That plea was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the Indictment. The offender is thereby entitled, as a consequence of the timing of that plea, to a discount of 5% in the ultimate determination of an appropriate sentence.

FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

  1. The factual background to these proceedings arises from the death of Troy Dihel on or about Thursday 9 February 2017. On that date three men, the offender, the deceased and a co-offender, RW were involved in the retrieval and theft of copper which they were in the process of acquiring from a number of buildings which were disused or in the process…

Continue reading R v Mihai

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mihai [2020] NSWDC 727
Case
[2020] NSWDC 727
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mihai, the defendant was charged with manslaughter following the death of a man who died from injuries sustained during an altercation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Mihai, had been involved in an incident where he struck the deceased with a single punch, resulting in fatal injuries. The incident had gained notoriety due to the legislative backdrop of "one punch" laws in New South Wales, which impose harsher penalties for such violent acts.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the appropriate sentencing range for the offence of manslaughter, particularly in light of the legislative framework that specifically targets such violent acts. The court also had to consider the defendant's background, including his previous criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the assault. Additionally, the court had to weigh the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged the severity of the offence and the impact of the "one punch" laws. The court found that while the defendant's actions were not premeditated, the consequences were devastating and warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court also considered the defendant's background and the need for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court imposed a head sentence of 3 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 and a half months, to commence on 10 August 2018. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of the principles of sentencing in this context.

Orders

Orders of the court

A head sentence of 3 years 10 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, 4 and a half months to commence on 10 August 2018.

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.