R v Rezwani - [2021] ACTSC 7

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rezwani
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 7
Hearing Date:	1 February 2021
Decision Date:	1 February 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [44]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery – taking a motor vehicle without consent – low end of mid range objective seriousness – offending occurred in the context of disordered thinking and intoxication – disrupted upbringing – mental health diagnoses – no criminal history –– medium to low risk of reoffending – intensive correction orders
imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 11, 46C(7) Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT), s 24 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 318
Cases Cited:	Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mohammad Rezwani (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
P Dixon (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 101 of 2020
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The offender, Mohammad Rezwani, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) aggravated robbery (SCCAN2020/89), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code
2002 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine
of $400,000 or both; and

(b) taking a motor vehicle without consent (CC2020/3436), which is contrary to
s 318(1) of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’
imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.

2. The four other charges on the indictment are to be the subject of a notice declining to proceed to be filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Facts

3. At approximately 11pm on 3 March 2020, the offender knocked on the door of an apartment in Taylor. The victim was staying at the apartment which belonged to his brother. The

victim’s brother was not at home at the time, however, his 2005 grey Honda Accord was

parked in the underground carpark. The keys to the vehicle were inside the apartment.

4. The victim opened the door to the offender, who he did not know. The offender said words

to the effect of “you hit my car” and said that he lived in another apartment in the same

complex. The victim explained that he did not hit the offender’s car but that it could have

been his brother. The offender threatened the victim and took a sliver flick knife, which had a blade of approximately 7 cm, from the pockets of his pants. The offender said that he would kill the victim and his brother with the knife and then shoot them both.

5. The offender told the victim to go with him to the underground carpark. He grabbed the

front of the victim’s shirt, held the knife up and said that if the victim did not go with him, he would kill him. The offender said words to the effect of “bring the keys, I’m gonna want the car”. He grabbed the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rezwani and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] ACTSC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rezwani was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, presided over by Mossop J. The offender, Mohammad Rezwani, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and taking a motor vehicle without consent. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering factors such as the objective seriousness of the offences, the offender's subjective circumstances, and his criminal history.

The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, finding the aggravated robbery to be at the low end of mid-range seriousness, while the taking of the motor vehicle was also at the low end of mid-range seriousness. The subjective circumstances included the offender's disrupted upbringing, mental health diagnoses, and history of substance abuse, which were considered mitigating factors. The court also noted the offender's lack of criminal history and the possibility of rehabilitation. The offender's behaviour was attributed to disordered thinking and intoxication, rather than a desire for personal gain.

In reaching its decision, the court balanced the need for denunciation and deterrence against the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that while a custodial sentence was appropriate, the offender had already spent a significant period in custody. Therefore, the court ordered that the sentences for both offences be served through intensive correction in the community. The sentence for aggravated robbery was set at 26 months, reduced from 30 months due to the offender's guilty plea, and the sentence for taking a motor vehicle without consent was set at 13 months, reduced from 15 months for the same reason. The sentences were to run cumulatively.

The court's final orders were that Rezwani be sentenced to serve 26 months for aggravated robbery and 13 months for taking a motor vehicle without consent, both to be served by intensive correction in the community. Each offence was also referred for restorative justice under the Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT).

Orders