Legal Research
Cases
R v Sharrouf

R v Sharrouf

Case [2009] NSWSC 1002 24 September 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina (C'Wealth) v Sharrouf [2009] NSWSC 1002

HEARING DATE(S): 03/08/09; 23/09/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 September 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: Khaled Sharrouf, in relation to the charge in the indictment to whichhave pleaded guilty, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months. This sentence is to commence on 8 November 2005 and is to expire on 7 February 2011. I fix a non-parole period in respect of the sentence of 3 years and 11 months and 7 days commencing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 14 October 2009.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - terrorism offence - need for punishment, deterrence and protection of the community - qualification where mental illness is involved - schrizophenia - discount for plea where accused becomes fit for trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Commonwealth Criminal Code Act
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
NSW Crimes Act

CASES CITED: El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370
Faheem Khalid Lodhi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 360 at [81] per Spigelman CJ
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; [2004] 78 ALJR 616 at [15]
R v Cameron [2002] 209 CLR 339 at [11]
R v Champion 1992 (64 A Crim R 244)
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at para 241
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 per Spigelman CJ at (21-23)
R v Letteri NSWCCA 18 March 1993 as adopted in R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Martin (1999) 1 Cr App R (477 at 480)
R v Matthews (2004) NSWCCA 112 per Wood CJ at CL (at 20-24)
R v Paull (1990) 20 NSWLR 47
R v Touma NSWSC 24 October 2008
Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247 at (110-111)

PARTIES: Regina (C'Wealth) v Khaled Sharrouf

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/2396001

COUNSEL: G. Bellew SC; S. McNaughton - Crown
W Brewer; M Pickin - Offender

SOLICITORS: C'Wealth DPP - Crown
Matouk Joyner Lawyers - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

PARRAMATTA: THURSDAY 24 September 2009

2007/2396001 - Regina v Khaled SHARROUF

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 8 November 2005 Khaled Sharrouf ("the offender") was arrested and charged with offences falling under pt 5.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. The offender was remanded in custody and has remained in custody since that time. He was committed for trial on 30 April 2007. On 31 May 2007, he was arraigned in the New South Wales Supreme Court upon a single count of conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts. This offence carries with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. A plea of not guilty was entered.

2 The trial of the accused and eight other men was listed to commence on 25 February 2008. In November 2007, however, a notice of motion was filed on behalf of the offender. This raised the issue of his unfitness to…

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 Sharrouf

Details

AGLC: R v Sharrouf [2009] NSWSC 1002
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1002
Decision Date: 24 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sharrouf involved the defendant, who was charged with a terrorism offence. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the need for punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of the defendant's mental illness, specifically schizophrenia, on the sentencing process. The defendant had pleaded guilty, and the court was required to decide whether to grant a discount on the sentence due to the plea.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of sentencing principles to a terrorism offence, particularly in the context of the defendant's mental health. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the protection of the community, while also considering the appropriate discount for the defendant's guilty plea. Furthermore, the court needed to determine how the defendant's schizophrenia affected his culpability and the overall sentencing.

The court found that the defendant's schizophrenia did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions, but it did impact his culpability. The court acknowledged the need for punishment and deterrence, but also recognised the importance of considering the defendant's mental health in the sentencing process. The court decided to grant a discount for the guilty plea, as the defendant had become fit for trial and demonstrated remorse. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community, as well as the defendant's mental illness.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a discount for the guilty plea, reflecting the court's consideration of the need for punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community, as well as the defendant's mental health. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing these factors in determining an appropriate sentence for a terrorism offence where mental illness is involved.

Orders