R v Raymon YOUMARAN - [2008] NSWSC 762

CITATION: R v Raymon YOUMARAN [2008] NSWSC 762

HEARING DATE(S): 27 June 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 July 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 17 years and 4 months to date from 31 May 2006. That sentence will expire on 29 September 2023. In relation to that sentence, a non-parole period of 13 years. That non-parole period will expire on 30 May 2019. Eligible for release on parole on 30 May 2019.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – offence in 2002 – no standard non-parole period – plea of guilty – offence slightly above mid range of seriousness – application of repealed s 44 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Mirad [2004] NSWSC 701
R v Bassam Hamzy [2002] NSWSC 128
Regina v Cakovski [2003] NSWSC 1

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Raymon Youmaran (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/2621

COUNSEL: J Pickering (Crown)
A Francis (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bannister Kyriacou Nasser Lawyers (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

ROTHMAN J

25 JULY 2008

2007/2621 R v Raymon YOUMARAN
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Shortly after midnight, in the early hours of Friday 13 December 2002, Raymon Youmaran shot and killed Mr Dimitri Debaz. For that act, Mr Youmaran has been charged with murder and has pleaded guilty.

2 Mr Debaz, the victim, was 28 at the time of his death. Mr Youmaran was 24 at the time that he shot Mr Debaz.

3 The crime of murder is regarded as the most serious of crimes because it involves the felonious taking of human life. The maximum sentence for the crime is life imprisonment, which penalty is imposed in the worst category of murder. Because the offence occurred in 2002, Mr Youmaran is required to be sentenced in accordance with the law as it then existed and there is no standard non-parole period for the offence.

4 The introduction of a standard non-parole period for the crime of murder had a significant effect in increasing the range of sentences generally imposed for the crime of murder and it is necessary to bear in mind the range of sentences that were imposed at the time that the conduct occurred, rather than at present.

5 Even within the crime of murder, a crime perceived as the most serious because of society’s view of the sanctity of human life, there is a range of culpability associated with the crime. In order to determine the objective features, which measure the culpability of Mr Youmaran and deal with his subjective circumstances, it is necessary to set out the circumstances of the offence. Before doing so, I briefly set out the purpose of sentencing in a case such as this.

Sentencing Principles

6 The purpose in sentencing any offender, even those charged with murder, seeks to resolve what are…

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 Raymon YOUMARAN

Details

AGLC: R v Raymon Youmaran [2008] NSWSC 762
Case: [2008] NSWSC 762
Decision Date: 25 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Raymon Youmaran involved a defendant convicted of murder for an offence committed in 2002. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue in the case was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to the offence. Notably, the murder offence fell slightly above the mid-range of seriousness, and the court had to determine the sentence in the context of the repealed section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The legal issue the court needed to address was the application of repealed section 44, which was in effect at the time of the offence. This section had been repealed, and the court had to consider whether it could still be applied in sentencing. The court examined the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the defendant's plea of guilty. The court also considered the principles of legality and retroactivity in sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that although section 44 had been repealed, it could still be applied to the sentencing of the offence due to its operation at the time of the offence. The court found that the offence was slightly above the mid-range of seriousness and took into account the defendant's guilty plea. The court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period to be determined by the court. The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence with specific details regarding the non-parole period.

Orders