R v Rahme

Case [2017] NSWDC 145


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RAHME [2017] NSWDC 145
Hearing dates: 03/02/2017
Date of orders: 10 February 2017
Decision date: 10 February 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:

CONVICTED - Sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, possess identification information with intent to commit an indictable offence, possess false document to obtain financial advantage, dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception, deal with property with intent to be proceeds of crime.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56NSWLR 147
R v Araya (2005) 155 A Crim R 555
R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Thangavelau v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 141
Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465
Yow v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA at 251
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Charbel Rahme - Offender
Representation:

Counsel:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Howell - Offender

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s): 2015/00057922; /00091758; /00201980; /00248426; /00287990; /00310843

sentence

  1. HIS HONOUR: Just sit there, Mr Rahme. Your sentencing is complicated, the orders I make will probably take five or ten minutes to pronounce in due course and I have to make those orders at the end of the sentence. But in your case the total sentence I propose to impose upon you is five and a half year imprisonment to date from the date you came into custody, 24 February 2015. I propose to fix a non-parole period, in relation to that five and a half years imprisonment, of three and a half years imprisonment to date from the same date. Thus, on my calculation your non-parole period will expire on 23 August 2018, that is approximately 18 months and two weeks from today. You will be eligible for release to parole on that date, subject to your right of appeal and the Crown’s rights of appeal. Whether you are released or not on that date will be a matter for the Parole Authority. But the sentences I impose will be amongst themselves partially concurrent, partially cumulative with one another to give effect to that total sentence. I will not ask you to stand when I make the orders, but I will ask that what I have just said to you form part of my remarks on sentence.

  2. The prisoner, Charbel Rahme, appears today for sentence in relation to eight offences for which he was committed for sentence to this Court from the Local Court. In respect of three of those offences there are either a matter on a Form 1, or matters on Forms 1, to be taken into account. I will detail which particular committal for sentence matters constitute the “principal” offence in respect of which the matters on the Forms are concerned.

  3. There is in…

Continue reading R v Rahme

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rahme [2017] NSWDC 145
Case
[2017] NSWDC 145
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rahme, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences including possessing identification information with intent to commit an indictable offence, possessing a false document to obtain financial advantage, dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and dealing with property with intent to be proceeds of a crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was alleged to have engaged in a series of fraudulent activities, including using stolen identification to obtain financial benefits and possessing false documents for the same purpose.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the various criminal statutes under which the appellant was charged, the applicability of these statutes to the facts of the case, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court needed to determine whether the prosecution had proved each element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, what sentence would be just and appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated all the required elements of the charges. It held that the appellant's actions were deliberate and involved significant planning and execution. In determining the sentence, the court considered the severity and number of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court concluded that an overall term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

CONVICTED - Sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

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.