R v Naddaf - [2018] VSC 429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0284

THE QUEEN

MOHAMED NADDAF

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 April 2018 & 18 June 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 July 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Naddaf
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 429

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by criminal negligence – Duty of care owed –Failure to seek medical assistance for wife seriously injured – Very serious instance of offence – Prolonged period over which offending occurred – Diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder; adjustment disorder; and low general intellectual functioning with mild intellectual development disorder – Verdins principles – Whether causal connection between mental impairment and offending – Moral culpability – Plea of guilty – Weight to general deterrence and denunciation – Less weight to specific deterrence and protection of community – Sentence of eleven years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eight years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of thirteen years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of ten years – Sentencing Act1991 – Crimes Act1958 – R v Blackwell [2013] VSC 499 – Reid v R (2010) 29 VR 446; [2010] VSCA 234 – R v Jagroop (2009) 22 VR 80; [2009] VSCA 46– R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson Mr P Bourke	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Cronin	Doogue + George

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mohamed Naddaf, on 16 November 2017, you pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Ashlee Brown at Craigieburn between 2 November 2016 and 6 November 2016. Your plea was put on the basis of manslaughter by criminal negligence. It was accepted on your behalf, that you were negligent in failing to obtain medical assistance for Ms Brown after she received multiple injuries from an assault inflicted upon her in a car located in the garage at your family home.

On 30 April 2018, I heard an opening on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, victim impact statements, and submissions on sentence from your counsel and that of the Director. Further submissions were made on 18 June 2018.

The Crown is apparently not in a position to prove who inflicted the injuries upon Ms Brown. You cannot, and will not, therefore be sentenced on the basis that you caused, or had any part to play in the infliction of the multiple injuries to Ms Brown.

Background to the offending
Circumstances of the offending

At the time of her death, Ms Brown was 25 years old and you were aged 37. You both resided at 40 Kernan Court, Craigieburn and had been in a relationship for five to six years. Living at the home with you were your three children; a son aged three years, a daughter aged two years and a son who was then six months old.

At approximately 10.55am on…

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 Naddaf

Details

AGLC: R v Naddaf [2018] VSC 429
Case: [2018] VSC 429
Decision Date: 20 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the matter of R v Naddaf was brought before the court to address the sentencing of the defendant, Mr Naddaf, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter by criminal negligence. The incident in question involved Mr Naddaf's failure to seek medical assistance for his wife, who was seriously injured, resulting in her death. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence considering the severity of the offence, the duration over which it occurred, and Mr Naddaf's mental health diagnoses.

The legal issues before the court included the causal connection between Mr Naddaf's mental impairments and his criminal conduct, as well as the principles guiding the determination of moral culpability. The court had to assess the significance of Mr Naddaf's plea of guilty, the necessity for general deterrence and denunciation, and the lesser importance of specific deterrence and community protection. The court also needed to balance the mitigating factor of Mr Naddaf's guilty plea against the aggravating factors of the very serious nature of the offence and the prolonged period over which it occurred.

The court found that, while there was a causal connection between Mr Naddaf's mental impairments and his criminal conduct, his moral culpability remained significant. Given the plea of guilty, the court imposed a sentence of eleven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years. The court acknowledged that, but for the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been thirteen years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years. The court referred to the Verdins principles, R v Blackwell, Reid v R, R v Jagroop, and R v Verdins in reaching its decision.

The court's final orders were that Mr Naddaf be sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years, reflecting the considerations of general deterrence, denunciation, and the mitigating factor of the guilty plea.

Orders