R v Samadi, Safi - [2008] NSWDC 307

CITATION: R v Samadi, Safi [2008] NSWDC 307

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Robbery in company (Benjamin Ling):
Convicted
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 months to date from the 5th April 2008 and to expire on the 4th of April 2009, balance of term of 6 months expiring on the 4th October 2009.
Robbery in company 3/11/06 (Zachery Degooyer):
Convicted
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th October 2008 and expiring on the 4th January 2010. Balance of term of 21 months expiring on the 4th October 2011.
Form 1 matters taken into account.
Robbery in Company (Lindsay Cluff, Timothy Cluff & Regan McDougall):
Convicted
Sentenced to a non- parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th of April 2009 and expire on the 4th July 2010. Balance of term of 16 ½ months to expire on the 19th November 2011
Robbery in company (Daniel Barabas & Chris Cooper):
Convicted
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th July 2009 and expiring on the 4th October 2010. Balance of term of 12 months expiring on the 4th October 2011

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentence - robery in company (x4) - assault with intent to rob in company (x2) - Form 1 assault with intent to rob shist in company (x1) - receiving - numerous high school students aged 14 - 17 targeted over 3 month period - and subsequently whilst on bail - small sums of money and mobile phones demanded - some use of cricket bat, metal rod and golf club as weapons - offender's role in robberies prominent - breach of bail, bond - claimed psychological causal link rejected - single male aged 18 at time of offending - minimal past criminal history - refugee - compromised intellectual functioning - rehabilitation given emphasis on accountof youth.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Gladue (1999) 1SCR 688 [80]
R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329
R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
R v Rause unreported NSWCCA 8 August 1992
The Attorney General Application under S 37 Crimes (Sentence Procedure Act) 1999 (2004) 61 NSWLR 38
R v Henry and Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Henry CCA (1999) 46 NSWLR 340
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v James Anthony Morris NSWCCA 25 September 1995
R v AEM snr- [2002] NSWCCA 58
Pham (1991) 55 A.Crim.R. 128

PARTIES: Regina
Safi Samadi

FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/21/0273

SOLICITORS: Crown: Mr L Crepaldi
Defence: Mr Aouad

JUDGMENT

1. On 13 December 2007 Mr Samadi was before the Court for sentence. On that occasion however there was no pre-sentence report. His matters were then stood over to 22 February 2008. On both occasions he had been before the Court it was at the District Court at Parramatta. He was then before the Court for sentencing…

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 Samadi, Safi

Details

AGLC: R v Samadi, Safi [2008] NSWDC 307
Case: [2008] NSWDC 307
Decision Date: 24 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Samadi, Safi involved several defendants charged with multiple counts of robbery in company, assault with intent to rob in company, and receiving stolen property. These offences were committed over a three-month period, targeting numerous high school students aged between 14 and 17. The defendants were also accused of committing similar offences while on bail. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentences for the various offences, taking into account the circumstances of each offence and the defendants' backgrounds.

The court considered various factors, including the prominence of the offenders' roles in the robberies, the use of weapons, the vulnerability of the victims, and the defendants' backgrounds. The court rejected the defendants' claims of a psychological causal link for their offending behaviour. The offenders were young, with minimal past criminal history, and one was a refugee with compromised intellectual functioning. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation due to the youth of the offenders at the time of the offending. The court also took into account the breach of bail and bond conditions by some of the defendants.

The court sentenced the defendants to various terms of imprisonment, with non-parole periods ranging from 12 months to 15 months. The sentences for the remaining terms of imprisonment varied, with some offenders receiving longer sentences due to the severity of their involvement in the offences. The court took into account the form 1 matters in sentencing one of the defendants. Overall, the court considered the circumstances of the offences and the defendants' backgrounds in determining the appropriate sentences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Robbery in company (Benjamin Ling):

Convicted

Sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 months to date from the 5th April 2008 and to expire on the 4th of April 2009, balance of term of 6 months expiring on the 4th October 2009.

Robbery in company 3/11/06 (Zachery Degooyer):

Convicted

Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th October 2008 and expiring on the 4th January 2010. Balance of term of 21 months expiring on the 4th October 2011.

Form 1 matters taken into account.

Robbery in Company (Lindsay Cluff, Timothy Cluff & Regan McDougall):

Convicted

Sentenced to a non- parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th of April 2009 and expire on the 4th July 2010. Balance of term of 16 ½ months to expire on the 19th November 2011

Robbery in company (Daniel Barabas & Chris Cooper):

Convicted

Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th July 2009 and expiring on the 4th October 2010. Balance of term of 12 months expiring on the 4th October 2011

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.

CITATION:	R v Samadi, Safi [2008] NSWDC 307
JUDGMENT DATE:	24 October 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Robbery in company (Benjamin Ling): Convicted Sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 months to date from the 5th April 2008 and to expire on the 4th of April 2009, balance of term of 6 months expiring on the 4th October 2009. Robbery in company 3/11/06 (Zachery Degooyer): Convicted Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th October 2008 and expiring on the 4th January 2010. Balance of term of 21 months expiring on the 4th October 2011. Form 1 matters taken into account. Robbery in Company (Lindsay Cluff, Timothy Cluff & Regan McDougall): Convicted Sentenced to a non- parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th of April 2009 and expire on the 4th July 2010. Balance of term of 16 ½ months to expire on the 19th November 2011 Robbery in company (Daniel Barabas & Chris Cooper): Convicted Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 months to date from the 5th July 2009 and expiring on the 4th October 2010. Balance of term of 12 months expiring on the 4th October 2011
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - sentence - robery in company (x4) - assault with intent to rob in company (x2) - Form 1 assault with intent to rob shist in company (x1) - receiving - numerous high school students aged 14 - 17 targeted over 3 month period - and subsequently whilst on bail - small sums of money and mobile phones demanded - some use of cricket bat, metal rod and golf club as weapons - offender's role in robberies prominent - breach of bail, bond - claimed psychological causal link rejected - single male aged 18 at time of offending - minimal past criminal history - refugee - compromised intellectual functioning - rehabilitation given emphasis on accountof youth.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
CASES CITED:	R v Gladue (1999) 1SCR 688 [80] R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329 R v Rushby (1977) NSWLR 597 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 R v Rause unreported NSWCCA 8 August 1992 The Attorney General Application under S 37 Crimes (Sentence Procedure Act) 1999 (2004) 61 NSWLR 38 R v Henry and Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Henry CCA (1999) 46 NSWLR 340 R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v James Anthony Morris NSWCCA 25 September 1995 R v AEM snr- [2002] NSWCCA 58 Pham (1991) 55 A.Crim.R. 128
PARTIES:	Regina Safi Samadi
FILE NUMBER(S):	2007/21/0273
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Mr L Crepaldi Defence: Mr Aouad