R v Sleiman - [2022] NSWDC 41

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sleiman [2022] NSWDC 41
Hearing dates: 21 February 2022; 22 February 2022; 23 February 2022; 24 February 2022.
Date of orders: 01 March 2022
Decision date: 01 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Guilty Count 2.
Factual Determination Count 1: see [98].

Catchwords:
CRIME - Drive manner dangerous causing death - fail to give assistance after vehicle impact
CRIMINAL TRIAL - fail to give assistance after vehicle impact causing death
SENTENCING - Drive manner dangerous causing death - fact finding - factual dispute- resolution of factual dispute
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - "and" - when it means “and/or” – “hendiadys”
WORDS AND PHRASES – hendiadys - failed to stop and give any assistance

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act1995
Crimes Amendment (Road Accident) Act 2005 (repealed)

Cases Cited:
Olbrich v the Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Scott:[ 2003] VSCA 55; 141 A Crim R 323
R v Shashati [2018] NSWCCA 167
R v Youseff (1990) 50 A Crim R 1
Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205; [1967] HCA 2
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; (1990) HCA 40
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54; (2003) 77 ALJR 1797
WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165

Texts Cited:
NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 21 September 2005
Statutory Interpretation in Australia 9th ed. D C Pearce

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mohsen Sleiman (the accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R Bonnici (for the accused)
Ms N Keay, Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor
Solicitors:
Vision Legal (for the accused)

File Number(s): 2020/00168026

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On the 25 April 2020, a Nissan Silvia 200SX, driven by Mohsen Sleiman left the Lady Wakehurst Drive in the Royal National Park, south of Sydney and hit a large tree. As a result of that impact, the front seat passenger, Mr Sleiman’s friend Emrah Nokic, died. Mr Sleiman was later charged with a number of offences arising from his driving that day. Two charges were committed to the District Court for trial:

Count 1: That Mohsen Sleiman, on 25 April 2021, at Lillyvale NSW, did drive a vehicle namely DF S072, when the vehicle was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Emrah Nokic and at the time of the impact Mohsen Sleiman was driving the vehicle in a manner dangerous to another person: s 52 A(1)(c) Crimes Act1900.

Count 2: That Mohsen Sleiman on 25 April 2021 at Lillyvale NSW, did drive a vehicle, namely DF S072, when the vehicle was involved in an impact and which occasioned the death of Emrah Nokic and Mr Sleiman knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the vehicle was involved in such an impact occasioning the death of Emrah Nokic and Mr Sleiman failed to stop and give any assistance that may have been necessary…

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 Sleiman

Details

AGLC: R v Sleiman [2022] NSWDC 41
Case: [2022] NSWDC 41
Decision Date: 01 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sleiman, the respondent was charged with dangerous driving causing death and failing to give assistance after a vehicle impact that resulted in death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent drove a vehicle that collided with a motorcycle, killing the rider. The respondent fled the scene without providing any assistance. The prosecution argued that the respondent's driving was dangerous and that he failed to stop and give any assistance after the impact.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the respondent's driving was dangerous and if he failed to stop and give any assistance after the impact. The court needed to interpret the phrase "failed to stop and give any assistance" and determine if it included the obligation to provide information to emergency services. The court also had to consider the meaning of the word "and" in the context of the statutory provisions.

The court held that the phrase "failed to stop and give any assistance" included the obligation to provide information to emergency services. The court interpreted the word "and" as "and/or" in the context of the statutory provisions. The court found that the respondent's driving was dangerous as he drove at a speed significantly above the speed limit and without regard to the safety of other road users. The court found the respondent guilty of both charges. The court made a factual determination that the respondent's driving was a significant contributing factor to the death of the motorcyclist.

The court sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The court considered the respondent's guilty plea, his lack of a criminal record, and the circumstances of the offence in determining the sentence. The court also considered the impact of the offence on the victim's family. The court ordered the respondent to pay a fine and made an order for the forfeiture of the vehicle involved in the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Guilty Count 2.

Factual Determination Count 1: see [98].

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 Sleiman [2022] NSWDC 41
Hearing dates:	21 February 2022; 22 February 2022; 23 February 2022; 24 February 2022.
Date of orders:	01 March 2022
Decision date:	01 March 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Guilty Count 2. Factual Determination Count 1: see [98].
Catchwords:	CRIME - Drive manner dangerous causing death - fail to give assistance after vehicle impact CRIMINAL TRIAL - fail to give assistance after vehicle impact causing death SENTENCING - Drive manner dangerous causing death - fact finding - factual dispute- resolution of factual dispute STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - "and" - when it means “and/or” – “hendiadys” WORDS AND PHRASES – hendiadys - failed to stop and give any assistance
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act1995 Crimes Amendment (Road Accident) Act 2005 (repealed)
Cases Cited:	Olbrich v the Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Scott:[ 2003] VSCA 55; 141 A Crim R 323 R v Shashati [2018] NSWCCA 167 R v Youseff (1990) 50 A Crim R 1 Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205; [1967] HCA 2 The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; (1990) HCA 40 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54; (2003) 77 ALJR 1797 WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165
Texts Cited:	NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 21 September 2005 Statutory Interpretation in Australia 9th ed. D C Pearce
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mohsen Sleiman (the accused) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr R Bonnici (for the accused) Ms N Keay, Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor Solicitors: Vision Legal (for the accused)
File Number(s):	2020/00168026