R v Safetli - [2013] NSWSC 1096

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Safetli [2013] NSWSC 1096
Hearing dates: 5 July 2013, 1 August 2013
Decision date: 09 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Latham J
Decision:
Convicted on the charge of intimidation pursuant to the s 166 certificate. Sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months, to date from 13 October 2010, expiring 12 April 2011.
Convicted of the murder of Michael McGurk. Sentenced to a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months to date from 13 April 2011, expiring 12 October 2017. The balance of term expires 12 April 2020. Eligible for release on 13 October 2017.
Catchwords: SENTENCE - guilty pleas - offence of murder - offence of intimidation - maximum discount for utilitarian value of pleas of guilty - execution style murder for payment - top of the range of objective seriousness for intimidation offence - offender's past and future assistance to police of a very high order - offender not entitled to an Ellis discount - no finding of special circumstances on basis of offender's subjective circumstances - finding of special circumstances on basis that accumulation of sentence for murder upon sentence for intimidation offence results in an aggregate non-parole period that is disproportionate to aggregate term
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Lewins v R [2007] NSWCCA 189
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v King (1998) 99 A Crim R 288
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina - (Crown)
Offender - (Haissam Safetli)
Representation:
Counsel
J Pickering SC - (Crown)
M Thangaraj - (Offender)
Solicitors
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Crown)
Nyman Gibson Stewart - (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/339091

SENTENCE

The offender, Haissam Safetli, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the murder of Michael McGurk on 3 September 2009. The offender adhered to that plea in this Court on 5 July 2013. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years.
The offender is entitled to the maximum discount for the utilitarian value of his pleas of guilty and the contrition inherent in those pleas.
The following agreed facts outline the circumstances leading up to the victim's murder and the role played by this offender. These facts have been, to a significant extent, recounted in the sentencing of Fortunato Gattellari and Senad Kaminic.

The Offence

Gattellari, and Ronald Medich, enjoyed a close business relationship for several years prior to 2009. Medich is a prominent property developer and businessmen who invested significant amounts of money into various business ventures proposed by Gattellari. The latter acquired a number of companies on behalf of Medich. These companies had financial difficulties which made them ripe for acquisition and development. All the companies' shares were transferred into an entity owned by Medich who was the sole director and shareholder. Gattellari's role was to oversee the running of these businesses on behalf of the entity. Gattellari was also involved in collecting…

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 Safetli

Details

AGLC: R v Safetli [2013] NSWSC 1096
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1096
Decision Date: 09 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Safetli, the defendant was convicted of one count of murder and one count of intimidation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant was sentenced following his pleas of guilty to both charges. The dispute primarily centred on the determination of an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's cooperation with law enforcement, and the potential for a discount due to his guilty pleas.

The court needed to decide the extent to which the defendant's guilty pleas could reduce his sentence, considering the severity of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the defendant's potential future assistance to the police and whether this warranted any form of discount. The court also needed to assess whether there were any special circumstances that could justify a departure from the standard sentencing principles.

The court found that the defendant was not entitled to an Ellis discount, which typically reduces a sentence due to a defendant's early guilty plea, as the defendant's assistance to the police was already considered in the sentencing process. The court determined that the maximum discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas was appropriate. However, the court concluded that there were special circumstances because the cumulative non-parole period resulting from the sentences for both offences was disproportionate to the aggregate term. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that took into account these special circumstances, ensuring a more balanced and proportionate outcome.

Orders