R v Selman - [2022] NSWDC 758

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Selman [2022] NSWDC 758
Hearing dates: 06 October 2022 & 07 December 2022
Date of orders: 07 December 2022
Decision date: 07 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Specify a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

Cases Cited:
Attorney General's application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v DeLaRosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
RvHarrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
RvOsenkowski [1982] A Crim R 394
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mahmoud Selman (Offender)
Representation:
Daniel Wotton (Solicitor for the ODPP)
Ian Lloyd KC (Counsel for the Offender)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Criminal Law Group (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/00207424

REVISED JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Mahmoud Selman appears today for sentence upon a charge contrary to s 35(4) Crimes Act 1900 alleging that he:

On 18 July 2021, at Bass Hill in the State of New South Wales, recklessly wounded Masri Eliwa.

PENALTY

The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years and there is a standard non-parole period specified for the purposes of Part 4 Division 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 of three years imprisonment.

FORM 1

The offender asks that when I impose sentence I bring to account an additional offence contrary to s 16(2) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 alleging that he:

On 20 July 2021, at Bass Hill in the State of New South Wales, being a passenger in or on a vehicle failed to disclose the identity, or as much of the driver's or other passengers' identity as was known to him, when required to do so by a police officer.

The offence to be taken into account has a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment, or both. The conduct upon which that charge was preferred is connected to and was committed in the circumstances upon which the principal charge has been preferred.

THE PRINCIPAL OFFENCE

The offence upon which sentence is to be imposed found in s 35(4) Crimes Act 1900 is expressed thus:

"A person who –

wounds any person, and
is reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to that or any other person,

is guilty of an offence."

The phrase "reckless wounding" should be understood in terms of the provision…

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 Selman

Details

AGLC: R v Selman [2022] NSWDC 758
Case: [2022] NSWDC 758
Decision Date: 07 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Selman came before the court, where the defendant, Selman, faced charges of reckless wounding. The dispute centred around an incident in which Selman caused serious injury to another individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal issues surrounding the sentencing of Selman. These included the severity of the offence, the nature of the injury inflicted, and the relevant factors that should be considered under the sentencing guidelines. The court also needed to address the specific sentencing provisions under Form 1 offences, as well as the potential penalties that could be imposed.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented and the circumstances surrounding the incident. It considered the principles of sentencing, the culpability of the offender, and the necessity of deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that the offence warranted a significant penalty, reflecting the seriousness of the reckless behaviour and the harm caused. After balancing the various factors, the court decided that a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months, was appropriate. This decision was made in accordance with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

The final orders of the court specified a sentence of imprisonment for Selman, with the terms outlined in the judgment. The sentence was to be carried out in accordance with the legal framework and the specific requirements of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Specify a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months

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 Selman [2022] NSWDC 758
Hearing dates:	06 October 2022 & 07 December 2022
Date of orders:	07 December 2022
Decision date:	07 December 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Specify a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v DeLaRosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 RvHarrison [2001] NSWCCA 79 RvOsenkowski [1982] A Crim R 394 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Mahmoud Selman (Offender)
Representation:	Daniel Wotton (Solicitor for the ODPP) Ian Lloyd KC (Counsel for the Offender) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Criminal Law Group (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/00207424