Legal Research
Cases
R v Mohamad Ali

R v Mohamad Ali

Case [2005] NSWSC 334 18 April 2005

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Provocation

Excessive Self-Defence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Mohamad Ali [2005] NSWSC 334
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 7/2/05 - 8/3/05, 8/4/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

18 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Wood CJatCL at 1

DECISION:
Imprisonment for 5 years and 8 months to date from 18 April 2005. Non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months to date from 18 April and to expire on 17 December 2007.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - manslaughter - shooting - excessive self-defence - provocation - accumulation of provocative conduct - specific intent - issues of deterrence.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Davis v The Queen (1998) 73 ALJR 139
Moffa v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 601
Parker v The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610
R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141
R v Blacklidge NSWCCA 12 December 1995
R v Bolt [2001] NSWCCA 487
R v Cioban [2003] NSWCCA 304
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim R
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Quartly (1986) 22 A Crim R 252
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43
R v Troja NSWCCA 16 July 1991
R v Walsh [2004] 142 A Crim R 140

PARTIES:
Regina
Abbas Mohamad Ali

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2003/42

COUNSEL:
S C de Silva (Crown)
W C Terracini SC with M Phelps

SOLICITORS:
S C Kavanagh (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 24 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Monday 18 April 2005

2003/42 Regina v Abbas MOHAMAD ALI

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The Prisoner was indicted on 9 February 2005 with the murder of Hussein Moussa. At the conclusion of his trial on 8 March 2005 he was found by the jury to be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He now appears for sentence.

Facts

2 The Prisoner, who shared a similar ethnic background to that of the deceased, had formerly been a friend of his. However as a result of him forming a relationship with Lena Hammoud, in respect of whom the deceased appears to have had something of an obsession, that friendship came to an end during the latter part of the year 2001.

3 Evidence was tendered from several witnesses, which was not directly contradicted, although it was certainly questioned, concerning the apparently tumultuous behaviour of the deceased in relation to Ms Hammoud during the year 2001, and in relation to various incidents or threats which the deceased was reported to have made that year concerning the Prisoner. The evidence of these witnesses gave rise to the issues of self-defence and provocation, it being accepted that it was the act of the Prisoner in deliberately shooting the deceased with the specific intention required for murder that brought about his death. Absent direct contradiction of these witnesses and in circumstances where…

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 Mohamad Ali

Details

AGLC: R v Mohamad Ali [2005] NSWSC 334
Case: [2005] NSWSC 334
Decision Date: 18 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mohamad Ali came before the court where Mohamad Ali was the appellant and the Crown was the respondent. The central issue was whether Ali's actions, which involved the fatal shooting of another individual, constituted manslaughter by way of excessive self-defence, or if there were elements of provocation or specific intent that could alter the charge. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether the respondent had acted in self-defence, whether there was an accumulation of provocative conduct leading up to the incident, and if Ali's actions were influenced by specific intent. Furthermore, the court had to consider the role of deterrence in sentencing, given the circumstances of the case. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of self-defence and provocation, and if the sentence imposed was appropriate.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that Ali's actions were indeed in self-defence, but the degree of force used was excessive. The court also noted the accumulation of provocative conduct but concluded that it did not significantly contribute to Ali's decision to shoot. Regarding specific intent, the court determined that there was no clear evidence of premeditation. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in sentencing and found that the original sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to reflect the mitigating factors and the absence of premeditation. The appeal was partially successful, resulting in a revised sentence for Ali.

Orders