R v Saliba - [2019] NSWDC 519

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saliba [2019] NSWDC 519
Hearing dates: 06 September 2019
Date of orders: 06 September 2019
Decision date: 06 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment for four years (48 months) with a non-parole period of two and a half years (30 months). The commencement date of the sentence is 12 June 2019. The head sentence will expire on 11 June 2023, the non-parole period will expire on 11 December 2021.

Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage — Circumstances of aggravation
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Delay
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Mill v Q (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Sabra v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 38
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Elias Saliba (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Barlow (Solicitor-Advocate, Crown)
G Stanton (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Agostino & Co (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/000248862

Judgment

Introduction

On Tuesday 11 June 2019 the offender was arraigned before a jury and pleaded not guilty to the following count:

“That on 18 January 2012 in Prairiewood in the State of New South Wales being in company, did detain Adrian Angeliri without consent and with intent to obtain an advantage, and at the time of detaining actual bodily harm was occasioned to Adrian Angeliri contrary to section 96(3) of the Crimes Act 1900.”

On Monday 17 June 2019 the jury found the offender guilty of the charge.

FINDING OF FACTS

The Crown case was a circumstantial case, the offender was engaged in a joint criminal enterprise with others. It relied on a number of pieces of evidence, including the evidence of Chris Afamasaga, Kava Valu and Periti Fanolua, who all made induced statements to the police and were recipients of s 128 certificates. Fanolua, Valu and Afamasaga all knew each other through employment at the Roxy Hotel in Parramatta Two of them worked as security guards and one as a responsible service of alcohol marshall. They all came to know a man named Mohi (Mohammed Hussein).
Mohi was involved in drug supply and paid cash to the three for their assistance. The friendship evolved and the three would go to Mohi’s house for barbecues. They met a friend of Mohi’s who was called Elias but had a nick name of Lu Lu. They called him Lu Lu. Lu Lu was the offender. He was described as middle eastern looking, muscly, in his early 20’s and had short hair, sometimes it was shaved. It was common knowledge amongst the group that Mohi was having disputes with some other people that were involved in drug supply.
On 17 January 2012 Afamasaga received a call from Fanolua. Fanolua asked to be picked up to go to Mohi’s place. Afamasage picked up Fanolua in his silver 2015 Ford Territory. He then picked up Kava Valu and…

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 Saliba

Details

AGLC: R v Saliba [2019] NSWDC 519
Case: [2019] NSWDC 519
Decision Date: 06 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saliba involved the defendant, Saliba, who was found guilty of a crime involving violent offences and detention for personal advantage under circumstances of aggravation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant considering the nature and gravity of the crime committed.

The court had to address whether the circumstances of the offence warranted an extended term of imprisonment and if the delay in bringing the case to trial had any bearing on the sentence. The court considered various factors, including the violent nature of the crime, the circumstances of aggravation, and the delay in the proceedings. The judge emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence.

After careful deliberation, the court determined that a term of imprisonment was warranted. The judge sentenced the defendant to four years, with a non-parole period of two and a half years. The sentence was set to commence on 12 June 2019, with the head sentence expiring on 11 June 2023 and the non-parole period expiring on 11 December 2021. The decision underscored the court's commitment to addressing violent crimes with appropriate penalties while considering the factors influencing the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment for four years (48 months) with a non-parole period of two and a half years (30 months). The commencement date of the sentence is 12 June 2019. The head sentence will expire on 11 June 2023, the non-parole period will expire on 11 December 2021.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Saliba [2019] NSWDC 519
Hearing dates:	06 September 2019
Date of orders:	06 September 2019
Decision date:	06 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment for four years (48 months) with a non-parole period of two and a half years (30 months). The commencement date of the sentence is 12 June 2019. The head sentence will expire on 11 June 2023, the non-parole period will expire on 11 December 2021.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage — Circumstances of aggravation SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Delay
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Mill v Q (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 Sabra v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 38
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Elias Saliba (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: S Barlow (Solicitor-Advocate, Crown) G Stanton (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Agostino & Co (Offender)
File Number(s):	2013/000248862