R v Saleh

Case [2023] NSWDC 639

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saleh [2023] NSWDC 639
Decision date: 29 November 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: S Hanley SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900, ss 52A(1)(c),52A(3)(b)

Cases Cited:

Barnett [2014] NSW CCA 296

Clampitt-Wotton [2002] NSWCCA 383

Costello [2017] NSWCCCA 32

Markham v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 295

Moodie [2020] NSWCCA 160

Morabito [2007] NSWCCA 126

R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553

R v Hasna [2020] NSWDC 947

R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSW LR 252

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mohammad Saleh (Offender)
Representation: Mr A Isaacs, Counsel for DPP
Mr D Dalton SC, Counsel for Offender
File Number(s): 2020/00283092

Judgment

  1. The offender Mohammad Saleh appears for sentence for two offences:

  2. Dangerous driving occasioning death contrary to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 in that he drove at a speed dangerous to other person or persons. The offence has a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. Claire Georgey was the victim.

  3. Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52A(3)(b) of the Crimes Act in that he drove at a speed dangerous to other persons. The offence has a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. Aaron Pritchard was the victim.

  4. Each offence has an automatic licence disqualification of 3 years and a minimum disqualification of 12 months.

History

  1. The offences took place on 7 September 2020. The offender was arrested on 30 September 2020 and spent 3 days in custody. I will take into account the time he spent into custody when sentencing him. He was initially charged with a co-offender Jim Malamas.

  2. He was committed for trial from the Local Court on the 10 February 2022. He had been listed to stand trial on the 29 September 2022 and 16 January 2023. Both were vacated before the listed date. He was listed to stand trial on the 28 August 2023.

  3. On the 21 June 2023 at the District Court during a Super Call Over the offender pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 4 on the Indictment. The Crown accepted those pleas in full satisfaction of the indictment. He had initially been charged with more serious offences. He appeared for a sentence hearing at this Court on 16 November 2023.

  4. The co-offender pleaded guilty and was sentenced by me on the 21 June 2023 in the Super Call Over to an offence of drive manner dangerous (s 117(2) Road Transport Act 2013). I am satisfied the sentence imposed on that co-offender does not require consideration of the principle of parity in sentencing when considering the sentence of this offender.

Crown Tender

  1. On sentence the Crown tendered:

Exhibit A, a Crown bundle including a statement of agreed facts, the offender’s criminal antecedents and the offender’s driving record, a Sentencing Assessment Report, dated 9 August 2023, by Kate Patterson, Victim Impact Statements from the deceased’s father, mother and sister.

Marked for Identification 1 was Mr…

Continue reading R v Saleh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Saleh [2023] NSWDC 639
Case
[2023] NSWDC 639
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saleh came before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Saleh, was charged with armed robbery and assault with intent to rob. The facts of the case involved an incident where Saleh allegedly used a weapon to threaten a victim and steal property. The Crown argued that Saleh's actions were premeditated and violent, while the defence contended that Saleh acted under duress and did not intend to cause harm. The court was tasked with determining whether Saleh was guilty of the charges as laid.

The primary legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the mens rea required for armed robbery and the application of duress as a defence. The court needed to assess whether Saleh's actions were voluntary and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish his intent at the time of the crime. Additionally, the court had to consider the circumstances under which duress might be a valid defence and whether the defence was applicable in this instance.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court found that Saleh's actions were deliberate and that there was clear intent to commit robbery. The evidence did not support the claim of duress, as there was no substantial proof that Saleh was coerced into committing the crime. The court concluded that Saleh was guilty of armed robbery and assault with intent to rob. The reasoning was based on the totality of the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, the defendant's statement, and the circumstances of the incident.

The court sentenced Saleh to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and retribution. The precise length of the sentence was determined based on the principles of sentencing in Victoria, focusing on the gravity of the offences and the protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence

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.