R v Salem Soukkar

Case [2014] NSWDC 160


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Salem Soukkar [2014] NSWDC 160
Hearing dates:12 September 2014
Decision date: 26 September 2014
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial aggregate sentence. For Orders see [75].

Catchwords: Multiple offences of robbery armed with an offensive weapon. Application of guideline judgment; aggregate sentences.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cahadi v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Dougan v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 135
Pearce v The Queen 1998 194 CLR 610
R v Dougan (2006) 160 A Crim R 135
R v Ellis [2002] NSWCCA 211
R v Goundar (2001) 127 A Crim R 331
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300
R v Smith [2007] NSWCCA 100
R v Sok [2000] NSWCCA 121
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Salem Soukkar (Offender)
Representation: C Jones (Crown)
B Galloway (Offender)
File Number(s):14/40626 14/96720
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The offender has pleaded guilty to one count of attempted robbery armed with a dangerous weapon (H 54197162/1) and five counts of robbery armed with an offensive weapon (H 54197162/2-6).

  1. Each of the charges is brought pursuant to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. Each carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

  1. The offender seeks to have two offences taken into consideration on a Form 1, pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The first is an offence of break, enter and steal pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act on 20 September 2013 at Como West Public School, and the second is a similar offence which occurred on 7 February 2014 at Santa Sabina School at Strathfield.

  1. The offender entered pleas of guilty at committal on 27 February 2014 and it is common ground that he is entitled to a 25% utilitarian discount on sentence in respect of each charge.

  1. The offender had originally pleaded guilty to one count of break, enter and steal at Como West Public School and one count of receiving stolen property (two Apple computers) from the Santa Sabina burglary. He was committed for sentence on both charges, however, on 9 May 2014 he provided a written statement to the investigating police admitting his involvement in the Santa Sabina burglary. The offender also gave information to the police about a co-accused involved in those burglaries. On 17 June 2014 the offender provided police with a second signed witness statement in respect of a co-accused involved in two armed robberies at the Caltex Service Station in December 2013, being Sequences 162/3 and 4. He has undertaken to give evidence consistent with those two signed statements at the trial of the co-accused.

The Sentence Hearing

  1. The Crown tendered a bundle on sentence (exhibit A) which included a statement of facts, a pre-sentence report…

Continue reading R v Salem Soukkar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Salem Soukkar [2014] NSWDC 160
Case
[2014] NSWDC 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Salem Soukkar involved the defendant, Salem Soukkar, who was charged with multiple offences of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the multiple offences committed, and to apply the guidelines set by previous judgments to arrive at an aggregate sentence.

The court needed to weigh various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The presiding judge had to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and provided adequate punishment while also considering the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. The court was also required to apply the guidelines set by previous judgments to ensure consistency in sentencing for similar offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the defendant's actions, noting the use of an offensive weapon and the impact on the victims. The judge considered the guidelines provided by prior cases and determined that an aggregate sentence was warranted. The court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The final orders, detailed in the judgment, specified the aggregate sentence to be served by the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial aggregate sentence. For Orders see [75].

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.