R v Neramsn Safar - [2014] NSWSC 376

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Neramsn SAFAR [2014] NSWSC 376
Hearing dates: 10 February 2014, 21 March 2014
Decision date: 01 April 2014
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
For the offence of murder, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, sentenced to a non-parole period of 11 years, commencing 17 January 2012 and concluding 16 January 2023, with a remainder of term of 4 years' and nine months' imprisonment concluding 16 October 2027.
First eligible for release on parole on 17 January 2023.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - extended joint criminal enterprise - no issue of principle - plea of guilty - sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Graham Keys Smith [2012] NSWSC 1565
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Neramsn SAFAR (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
J Dwyer (Crown)
D Dalton SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
John Hajje (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/00008632

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Neramsn SAFAR has pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, related to the death of Colin Wick. Criminal culpability for the murder depended on the principles of extended joint criminal enterprise. It is necessary to outline Mr Safar's involvement in the crime.

The Facts

There is an Agreed Statement of Facts, tendered to the Court of which the following is mostly a summary, but it also includes some facts adduced in evidence. On 23 July 2011, Mr Safar and two others travelled to Chatham Street Canley Heights in a white Toyota Corolla.

The three offenders went to 25 Duke Street, Canley Heights. Each was dressed in dark clothing. Each was wearing a balaclava and gloves to hide his identity. One of the other offenders was armed. The first time Mr Safar became aware of the presence of a gun, was when he saw it, which was when the three offenders alighted the car.

The offenders banged on the double-class sliding door at 25 Duke Street several times. The deceased ran from his bedroom to investigate the source of the noise, followed by Eleanor Attard. The deceased reached over a lounge to pull back the curtain to reveal the window (or to look outside).

On the other side of the glass doors were the three co-offenders, including Mr Safar. Almost immediately upon drawing the curtain, the co-offender discharged the weapon once, shooting the defendant in the chest. The weapon was aimed, either before the curtain was drawn or when the deceased commenced to draw it.

The bullet pierced the deceased's aorta and right lung, exited through his back and lodged in a wall in the lounge room.

The deceased moved backwards towards his bedroom and said, "Help! I've been shot!", before collapsing in the hallway. He died shortly thereafter.

The three offenders ran back to the white Toyota. It would not start and they left on foot. Ms Attard…

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 Neramsn Safar

Details

AGLC: R v Neramsn Safar [2014] NSWSC 376
Case: [2014] NSWSC 376
Decision Date: 01 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Neramsn Safar involved the defendant, Safar, who was charged with the murder of a victim in the context of an extended joint criminal enterprise. Safar entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the crime and the role Safar played within the extended joint criminal enterprise.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing principles applicable to extended joint criminal enterprises and the extent to which Safar’s role and conduct warranted a particular sentence. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, and Safar's culpability within the joint enterprise. Additionally, the court needed to balance the principles of general and specific deterrence with the need for proportionality in sentencing.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted that, while there was no issue of principle that needed to be resolved, the sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court took into account the plea of guilty, which typically warrants a discount in sentence. However, given the gravity of the offence and Safar's role in the extended joint criminal enterprise, the court imposed a sentence that was deemed appropriate to reflect the culpability and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court concluded that the sentence should serve both as a punishment for the crime and as a deterrent against similar conduct in the future.

Orders