R v Obeid

[2019] NSWDC 204

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Obeid [2019] NSWDC 204
Hearing dates:	30 April 2019
Date of orders:	30 April 2019
Decision date:	30 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate Intensive Corrections Order – 2 years 4 months
Catchwords:	CRIME – facilitating organised car or boat rebirthing activities
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Markarian v R 2005 HCA 25 McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 Muldrock v R 2011 HCA 39 R v Borkowski 2009 NSWCCA 102 R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Omar Obeid (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Kemp (Crown) Mr Karim (Offender)
File Number(s):	2017/00333696, 2017/00102657, 2017/00102747 & 2017/00274948

EX TEMPORE Judgement (REVISED)

1. The offender pleaded guilty to three offences when presented on indictment and there is one offence to be taken into account on a Form 1.

2. The pleas of guilty were entered on the first day appointed for his trial on 11 February 2019 after there were negotiations leading to resolution of the matters in dispute between the parties. The ultimate agreement was that he would plead guilty to count 1 and to counts 2 and 3 which were included in the indictment ex officio. There has been some discussion about the extent to which he should have a discount for the utility provided by those pleas of guilty but in the circumstances when the counts in 2 and 3 were included in the indictment on the day of trial, the first opportunity then presented to him, he pleaded guilty and in those circumstances a discount of 25% should be applied for utility in accordance with the decision in R v Borkowski 2009 NSWCCA 102.

3. The sentence to be imposed on count 1 however was on the day of trial and was a matter to which he could have made admissions at least before the day the plea was entered. That said there were ongoing negotiations and there was an indication of a plea to that charge early on in the process as outlined in the submissions provided by Mr Karim on behalf of the offender. Having reviewed that history I am of the view that a discount of 20% should be applied to the sentence that would otherwise be imposed for that offence.

4. I should observe that the discounts in each case will be applied to the indicative sentences which I have found appropriate for each of these offences. Those indicative sentences were reached on a synthesis of objective and subjective matters including the extent to which there has been contrition and remorse and there are prospects of rehabilitation. Once that synthesis is completed it is to the product of that analysis that the discount will be applied in each case.

5. The first offence is an offence contrary to s…