R v Raad - [2002] NSWCCA 75

CITATION: R v Raad [2002] NSWCCA 75

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60795/01

HEARING DATE(S): 18 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 March 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW) (Respondent)
Ahmad RAAD (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 16

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0385; 01/11/0818

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL : RA Hulme (Crown)
BD Quinn (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Anderson Lawyers (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - armed robbery - subjective features

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, ss 91(1), 97(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 44(2)

CASES CITED:
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

DECISION: See para 15.

60795/01

DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Monday, 18 MARCH 2002

R v Ahmed RAAD

Judgment

1 DUNFORD J: This is an application by Ahmed Raad for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him by his Honour Judge Goldring in the District Court at Wollongong on 24 October 2001 following his pleas of guilty to a number of offences.

2 The first matter was a charge of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon contrary to s 91(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 committed on 1 February 2001 at Mortdale when the applicant and a co-offender produced a knife and threatened to stab a person who was seated in the driver's seat of his car and took $55 and the victim's backpack. The applicant was arrested on 27 February, admitted the offence, was charged and admitted to bail. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed to the District Court for sentence. In respect of this offence the sentence of 2 years imprisonment with no non-parole period was the same as that given to his co-offender except that the co-offender's sentence was suspended, a course which was not open to his Honour in respect of the applicant because of the other matters.

3 On 3 June 2001 whilst on bail for this offence, the applicant approached Liam McGarr at the Downtown Backpack Hotel at 701 George Street, Haymarket, and in the foyer of that establishment, being in possession of a replica rifle and a knife, demanded the resident's money and threatened to shoot and/or stab him. The victim said he did not have any money so the applicant rifled through the resident's bag and stole a pair of sunglasses and a small mini torch. He also indicated during the attack that he had an AK47 Assault Rifle in his bag. He then left the premises and went to the vicinity of Paddy's Market.

4 Later that morning he approached two young men, Nathan Townsend, aged 18, and Michael Hopkins, aged 17, in George Street. He told them that he was a police officer and commenced to look in their bags, at the same time pulling his jacket aside so that both victims saw what appeared to be a silver coloured pistol tucked into the front of the applicant's trousers. They tried to walk away from him…

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 Raad

Details

AGLC: R v Raad [2002] NSWCCA 75
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 75
Decision Date: 18 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Raad involved the defendant, Raad, who was convicted of armed robbery and faced sentencing by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account various subjective features relevant to the crime and the offender. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the character and background of the offender.

The legal issues that arose for the court's determination included the appropriate weight to be given to subjective factors such as the offender's background, the level of planning and sophistication involved in the crime, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court was required to balance these subjective features against the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the importance of considering subjective features in sentencing, but emphasised the necessity of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consistent with broader sentencing principles. The court held that while the subjective features of the case warranted some consideration, they could not override the fundamental principles of sentencing, including the need to protect the community and provide an appropriate level of deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors. The decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, where subjective features are considered alongside other relevant considerations.

Orders