R v Nehme (No 7) - [2024] NSWSC 1617

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nehme (No 7) [2024] NSWSC 1617
Hearing dates: 06, 30 September 2024, 11 November 2024
Date of orders: 16 December 2024
Decision date: 16 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: McNaughton J
Decision:
Mr Nehme is sentenced to imprisonment for 21 years and 6 months. The Court sets a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 9 December 2019, and an additional term of 6 years and 6 months commencing on 9 December 2034 and ending on 8 June 2041.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – joint criminal enterprise – murder – assault with intent to rob in company – armed robbery – deceased stabbed multiple times during robbery – aggravated break and enter with intent to steal – assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company – where trial separated from co-accused – where offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending – where offender has limited reduced moral culpability – where offender has experienced hardship in custody – where delay in trial being heard to finality – where special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18,19A, 97, 112
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5A, 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 30E, 44, 54A, 61
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Cases Cited:
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Markarian vThe Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
MuldrockvThe Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Nasrallah v R (2021) 105 NSWLR 451; [2021] NSWCCA 207
R v Chamma; R v Hicks (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1057
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Nehme (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 515
R v Nehme; R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 4) [2024] NSWSC 451
R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Taufahema [2024] NSWSC 1419
The QueenvOlbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Joseph Nehme (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
D Dalton SC / T Weller-Wong (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
JB Corban Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00388186
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In the early hours of 7 December 2019, at Condell Park, New South Wales, Luke Lembryk was tragically stabbed to death in his home following a break-in by two men unknown to him. He died shortly after the stabbing in the arms of his mother, Ms Bradley, with whom he lived. Ms Bradley was also assaulted by the men. Mr Lembryk was 29 years old at the time of his death and was a much loved man. Later in my remarks, I will have more to say about Mr Lembryk and the devastatingly sad loss suffered by his family. These remarks must now focus, however, on the events…

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 Nehme (No 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Nehme (No 7) [2024] NSWSC 1617
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1617
Decision Date: 16 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Nehme, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including murder, assault with intent to rob in company, armed robbery, aggravated break and enter, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant, who had limited moral culpability and had experienced hardship in custody. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay in the trial being heard to finality, as well as the special circumstances surrounding the case, warranted a reduced sentence. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the gravity of the offences committed by the appellant warranted a lengthy sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court noted that the appellant had limited moral culpability due to his role in the joint criminal enterprise, but also acknowledged the seriousness of the offences committed. The court also considered the delay in the trial being heard to finality and the hardship experienced by the appellant in custody. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the appellant was imprisonment for a total of 28 years, with a non-parole period of 21 years. The court also noted that the sentence was to run concurrently with any other sentences the appellant may be serving.

Orders