R v Saeb Raad - [2009] NSWSC 830

CITATION: R v Saeb RAAD [2009] NSWSC 830

HEARING DATE(S): 6 April 2009, 29 May 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 August 2009

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION: For the offence of armed robbery, sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 5 years commencing 7 February 2008 and expiring on 6 February 2013. For the offence of murder, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 years commencing 7 February 2008 and expiring on 6 February 2022, with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months expiring on 6 August 2018. Eligible for release on parole on 6 August 2018.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – offence in 2001 – no standard non-parole period – plea of guilty – significant leniency on account of voluntary disclosures – Ellis factors - felony murder - armed robbery - no issue of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Bell [2005] NSWCCA 81
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Saeb Raad (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/15481

COUNSEL: T Thorpe (Crown)
A Barber (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Patricia White & Associates Solicitors (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ROTHMAN J

20 AUGUST 2009

2008/15481 R v Saeb RAAD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: At about 12.45pm on 3 September 2001, Saeb Raad robbed an armed security guard and, in the process, killed him. The armed security guard was Mr Ahmed Rashid, who worked for All Time Security, a sub-contractor to Chubb Security. Mr Raad has been indicted for both the murder and the armed robbery and pleaded guilty to each.

2 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 2001, Mr Raad 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.

3 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.

4 Even within the crime of murder, a crime perceived as the most serious because of society’s understandable and correct 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 Raad and deal…

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 Saeb Raad

Details

AGLC: R v Saeb Raad [2009] NSWSC 830
Case: [2009] NSWSC 830
Decision Date: 20 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saeb Raad arose before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Saeb Raad, pleaded guilty to the murder of a man during the course of an armed robbery in 2001. The absence of a standard non-parole period for this particular offence led to the need for the court to determine an appropriate sentence. The central issue before the court was the extent to which Raad's voluntary disclosures and admissions should influence the severity of his sentence. The court needed to balance these factors against the heinous nature of the crime committed.

The court considered the principles outlined in the case of R v Ellis, which provide a framework for assessing the gravity of an offence and the factors that may justify a reduction in sentence. In this instance, the court acknowledged that Raad's early cooperation and full disclosure of his involvement in the crime were significant mitigating factors. The court also recognised the complexities associated with the felony murder rule, which held Raad accountable for the death that occurred during the commission of the armed robbery. The court determined that, while the offence was severe, the voluntary disclosures warranted a degree of leniency. The Ellis factors, along with the specific circumstances of the case, guided the court in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and applicable legal principles, the court determined that a sentence reflecting the seriousness of the crime, while also accounting for the mitigating factors, was warranted. The court imposed a sentence that considered both the gravity of the murder and the benefits of Raad's cooperation. The final orders of the court were to confirm the sentence imposed by the trial judge, recognising the appropriate balance between punishment and leniency.

Orders