R v Salim

Case [2023] NSWDC 646


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Salim [2023] NSWDC 646
Hearing dates: 15 December 2023
Date of orders: 15 December 2023
Decision date: 15 December 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

See pars [15] and [18].

Catchwords:

CRIME – APPEAL – Common Assault on a female and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on male – “Road rage” offences resulting from queuing up to be tested for COVID-19 during pandemic – Prior sentence imposed below replaced with ICO requiring home detention.

Legislation Cited:

Nil.

Cases Cited:

R v Saleh; R v Salim [2023] NSWLC 2

R v Saleh [2023] NSWDC 645

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Appellant – Ali Salim
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown – Gourlie, K.
Appellant – James, G. KC.

Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW).
Appellant – One Group Legal.
File Number(s): 2021/00367860
Publication restriction: Nil.
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Citation:

[2023] NSWLC 2

Date of Decision:
12 May 2023
Before:
Magistrate Donnelly

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a decision made by Magistrate Donnelly, sitting in the Local Court at Sutherland on 12 May 2023.

  2. His Honour’s decision may be found at R v Saleh; R v Salim [2023] NSWLC 2. I have previously dealt with the appeal brought by Mr Saleh. I made orders in his case on Monday, 25 September 2023, and gave my reasons for making that decision at that time. Unfortunately, they have not yet been transcribed. However, I will rely upon them in this case to avoid having to repeat what I said previously. At the time of revising my ex tempore judgment those reasons have become available: R v Saleh [2023] NSWDC 645.

  3. In the appeal of Mr Saleh, I accepted the indicative sentences for each of the two offences committed by that offender, as fixed by the learned Magistrate and I also maintained the aggregate sentence fixed by the learned Magistrate. His Honour sentenced Mr Saleh to imprisonment for a period of 22 months and fixed a non-parole period of 14 months.

  4. I set aside the order for imprisonment and imposed an intensive corrections order for a period of 22 months which, inter alia, required Mr Saleh to serve a period of home detention for the first 14 months of the sentence, and I also required him to complete community service work for 150 hours. There were, of course, the compulsory two conditions of the order that he must not commit any offence and that he was subject to supervision by a community corrections officer.

  5. I could not deal with Mr Salim’s case at that time because there was no sentencing assessment report commenting upon the suitability of Mr Salim for home detention.

  6. Very shortly I should point out that the facts arose out of what might be thought to be a ‘’road rage incident’’ occurring when a car being driven by Mr Saleh’s wife…

Continue reading R v Salim

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Salim [2023] NSWDC 646
Case
[2023] NSWDC 646
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Salim, the defendant was convicted for committing acts of common assault against a female and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against a male, stemming from a series of road rage incidents that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The incidents took place while the parties were queuing up to be tested for the virus. Salim appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The central legal issues revolved around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal questioned whether the sentence was sufficiently severe given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court also had to consider whether an intensive correction order (ICO) was a suitable alternative to the sentence previously imposed.

In its reasoning, the court held that while the offences were serious, they were not of the highest culpability. The sentencing court had failed to adequately consider the possibility of an ICO as an alternative to imprisonment. The court recognised the unique circumstances of the offences occurring during the pandemic, and the fact that Salim had no prior criminal history. Given these factors, the court replaced the original sentence with an ICO requiring home detention, deeming it a more appropriate response to the circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that Salim serve an ICO with home detention for a period of six months. Additionally, Salim was required to participate in a program designed to address anger management and to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work. The court also ordered that Salim pay a fine of $1,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [15] and [18].

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.