JUDGE:	NETTLE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	2-18 June, 1 August 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 August 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mohamed & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 299

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Two accused found guilty of manslaughter and one found guilty of assault – Death resulted from altercation on busy road late at night – Alleged break in causation – Deceased ran from altercation and was struck by vehicle travelling at excessive speed – Young offenders all students – Evident remorse – Excellent prospects for rehabilitation – Two sentenced to Youth Justice Centre orders of three years – Third sentenced to 12 months Community Based Order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C W Beale with Mr P A Stefanovic	Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Abdeweli Mohamed	Mr D A Glynn with Mr P McClure	Doogue & O’Brien
For the Accused Sharmake Aidid	Mr D J McKenzie	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Accused MA	Mr A McL Jackson	Gleeson (Michael J) & Associates Pty

HIS HONOUR:

Sharmake Aidid and MA, you have been found guilty of the manslaughter of Lionel Norris on 6 December 2006 and, Abdeweli Mohamed, you have been found guilty of assaulting Mr Norris.

The facts

On 6 December 2006, the three of you drove together in a borrowed car to The Mall in Bell Street Heidelberg West. After you had spent about an hour there together, you set off home in the car. Along the way, you pulled into the BP Service Station in Bell Street, Heidelberg Heights to buy petrol. You, Abdeweli Mohamed, got out of the car to put the petrol in the tank while the others of you remained in the car. As you were filling the tank, Lionel Norris wandered up to you and asked you whether you could spare a cigarette. He was drunk and belligerent and positioned himself uncomfortably close to you. You told him, as was the fact, that you did not smoke.

Mr Norris continued on into the petrol station shop and inquired of the attendant whether his wife had been in to telephone the police. After some hesitation, the attendant told him that she had been. You, Abdeweli Mohamed, then entered the shop to pay for the petrol, and at that point Mr Norris left the shop and headed out across the apron of the station. As he did so, he gestured towards you, Sharmake Aidid and MA, as you sat in the car and he made a threatening sign with his hand, like a cocked pistol, and shouted drunken abuse at you. Then he turned right onto the northern footpath of Bell Street and began to walk westward.

Moments later, Abdeweli Mohamed returned from…

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 Mohamed

Details

AGLC: R v Mohamed [2008] VSC 299
Case: [2008] VSC 299
Decision Date: 13 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mohamed involved three young offenders, all of whom were found guilty of various charges relating to an altercation that resulted in the death of a fourth individual. The defendants were all students who had been involved in an incident on a busy road late at night. The deceased ran from the altercation and was subsequently struck by a vehicle travelling at an excessive speed, leading to their death. The central legal issue before the court was whether there was a break in the chain of causation between the defendants' actions and the deceased's death. Additionally, the court had to determine appropriate sentences for the offenders, taking into account their young age, evident remorse, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court found that while the defendants' actions did contribute to the circumstances leading to the death, there was no break in the chain of causation. The court held that the defendants' unlawful and dangerous act created a situation that made the deceased's death a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Therefore, the defendants were held responsible for the death, with two found guilty of manslaughter and one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In determining the sentences, the court considered the young age of the offenders, their evident remorse, and their excellent prospects for rehabilitation. As a result, the two offenders found guilty of manslaughter were sentenced to Youth Justice Centre orders of three years each, while the offender found guilty of assault was sentenced to a 12-month Community Based Order.

The court's reasoning focused on the significant consequences of the defendants' actions, which led to the death of the deceased. Despite the remorse shown by the offenders and their potential for rehabilitation, the court considered it necessary to impose sentences that reflected the gravity of their crimes and the need to deter similar behaviour in the future. The court also emphasised the importance of holding young offenders accountable for their actions while providing them with opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. In this case, the court found that Youth Justice Centre orders and a Community Based Order were the most appropriate sentences, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders