R v Semaan - [2016] VSC 667

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0127
S CR 2016 0124
S CR 2016 0125

THE QUEEN

ALEXANDER JOHN SEMAAN

HANNA SEMAAN

MEGAN BELJULJI

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 20-22, 25-29 July, 1-5, 10-12, 15-19, 22-25, 29, 31 August, 1, 2, 5-6 September, 24 and 28 October 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 November 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Semaan & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 667

---

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Murder – Offender (D1) shot and killed a family friend, in backyard of offender’s family home – D1 on parole at time – Summary offence of breach of parole – Impact of offending on victims –D1 affected by ‘ice’ at the time of offending – Evidence insufficient for a finding that D1 was psychotic at time of offence- Use of ice neither mitigating or aggravating –- Mid-range example of the offence of murder – History of mental health problems in context of drug abuse – Significant prior convictions – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Need for just punishment, denunciation and specific and general deterrence – s 78A Corrections Act 1986 - s 242 Criminal Procedure Act2009 – Iddon & Crocker (1987) 32 A Crim R 315 – Redenbach (1991) 52 A Crim R 95 – Sebalj [2006] VSCA 106 – Pyke [2006] VSCA 265.

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Attempt to pervert the course of justice – Offender (D2) pressured eyewitness to the murder by D1 to change his police statement – Mid-range example of offence –Imprisonment harder for offender because of separation from disabled daughter – Prior convictions for deception offences – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Importance of general deterrence.

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Attempt to pervert the course of justice – Two counts - Offender (D3) was a party to pressuring eyewitness to the murder by D1 to change his police statement – Mid-range example of offence – D3 also a party to putting police onto a false trail of evidence – Low-range example of offence – No prior convictions – History of drug use – Family support – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Importance of general deterrence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Michelle Williams QC Mr Neil Hutton	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Alexander John Semaan	Mr Michael Sharpley	Valos Black & Associates
For the Accused Hanna Semaan	Mr John Kelly	Matthew White & Associates
For the Accused Megan Beljulji	Mr David Cronin	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

ALEX SEMAAN

Introduction

Alex Semaan, a jury found you guilty of murder. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

You were on parole at the time of the murder. You were charged with breaching your parole by reason of the murder. After a summary trial,[1] I found you guilty of that offence. The maximum sentence for breaching parole is 3 months imprisonment.[2]
[1] Pursuant to s 242…

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 Semaan

Details

AGLC: R v Semaan [2016] VSC 667
Case: [2016] VSC 667
Decision Date: 4 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Semaan and others were before the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges arising from the murder of a family friend in the backyard of Semaan’s family home. Semaan, the first defendant, had shot the deceased, while the second and third defendants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by pressuring an eyewitness to change his statement to the police. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offending, the impact on the victims, and the individual circumstances of each offender.

The court considered a range of factors in determining the appropriate sentences, including the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the individual circumstances of each offender. For the first defendant, the court found that while the use of "ice" at the time of the offence was a relevant factor, it did not mitigate or aggravate the offending. The court found that the murder was a mid-range example of the offence and that the offender had a history of mental health problems and drug abuse, as well as significant prior convictions. The court also noted the need for just punishment, denunciation, and specific and general deterrence. For the second and third defendants, the court found that their offending was also a mid-range example of the offence and that the second defendant faced additional hardship due to separation from his disabled daughter. The court found that the second defendant had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, while the third defendant had good prospects of rehabilitation due to family support and a history of drug use.

The court ultimately sentenced the first defendant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years, the second defendant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years, and the third defendant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in its sentencing of the second and third defendants. The court also noted the significance of the offending on the victims and the need for specific deterrence in its sentencing of the first defendant.

Orders