R v Osman Elmasri

Case [2013] NSWDC 177

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Osman Elmasri [2013] NSWDC 177
Hearing dates:22 August 2013
Decision date: 19 September 2013
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Custodial sentence imposed; for Orders see [58]

Catchwords: Sentence; possession of firearm
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391
R v AA [2006] NSWCCA 55
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Osman Elmasri - Offender
Representation: C Reynolds - Crown Solicitor
P Givorshner - Offender
File Number(s):13/78864
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

Introduction

  1. The offender is charged with an offence pursuant to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 in that on 14 March 2013 he was in possession of an unauthorised prohibited firearm, being a prohibited pistol, to wit, a .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolver, not being authorised to do so by a license or permit.

  1. The offender has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 14 March 2013. He pleaded guilty to the offence and was committed for sentence on 22 May 2013.

  1. The matter came on for sentence hearing before me at Parramatta District Court on 22 August 2013. There was one matter to be dealt with on a Form 1, namely, one charge pursuant to s 65 (3) of the Firearms Act 1996 of possess ammunition without holding a license/permit/authority for firearm without holding a license or permit for a firearm which takes that ammunition. I have certified that that matter has been taken into account pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the C(SP)A") - see exhibit B.

Statement of Agreed Facts

  1. A Statement of Agreed Facts became exhibit A4 on the Sentence Hearing. The following is a summary. On 14 March 2013 the Police executed a search warrant at premises at 45 Warren Road, Woodpark, part of which was occupied by the offender and his wife Rachel Games. During a search of the living area Police located a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver with serial number 7455 which was loaded with six rounds of ammunition in a black-coloured soft holster. The weapon was located in a drawer, together with a wallet and a number of Vodafone unused sim card packets. The wallet contained identification and other document in the name of the offender as well as $550 cash.

  1. The offender was arrested but declined to participate in an electronically recorded interview. The weapon was sent to ballistics for examination and was found to be in working order. Part of the serial number was missing and the revolver was deemed to be a prohibited pistol. The .38 calibre cartridges were also examined by ballistics and were found to be designed for use in the .38 Smith and Wesson revolver.

Antecedents

  1. The only antecedents of the offender were matters dealt with in the Fairfield Local Court on 19…

Continue reading R v Osman Elmasri

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Osman Elmasri [2013] NSWDC 177
Case
[2013] NSWDC 177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Elmasri involved the respondent, Osman Elmasri, who was charged with possessing a firearm, a matter that came before the court. The nature of the dispute was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to the charge. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge [Name]. The respondent was found to have been in possession of a firearm, which was unregistered and without a license, a matter that raised significant legal issues concerning sentencing and the severity of the punishment that should be imposed.

The primary legal issue the court was required to address was the appropriate sentence to impose on the respondent. The court needed to consider various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant legislation. The respondent had a prior criminal history, which included multiple offences, and this was a critical factor in determining the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court had to weigh the public interest in imposing a custodial sentence as a deterrent against the respondent's personal circumstances and any mitigating factors that might apply.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the severity of the offence, which involved the possession of an unregistered and unlicensed firearm. The court noted the potential danger posed by such an offence to public safety and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The respondent's criminal history, which included multiple previous offences, was also a significant factor in the court's deliberations. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent. Consequently, the court imposed a custodial sentence on the respondent, with specific orders detailed in paragraph 58 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Custodial sentence imposed; for Orders see [58]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.