R v Tanbuz - [2019] NSWDC 199

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tanbuz [2019] NSWDC 199
Hearing dates: 30 January 2019
Decision date: 22 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Offender sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - assault occasioning actual bodily - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence (actual bodily harm) - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act (NSW) 1900, ss59(1) and 112(2)
Cases Cited: R v Edigarov [2001] NSWCCA 436
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Mohammad Tanbuz (for the offender)
Representation:
Mr Walkowiak (ODPP)
Ms Wasley (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2017/318140
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Mohammad Tanbuz, you appear for sentence today in relation to three principal offences.
Two of those principal offences are assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Those offences involve contraventions of s 59(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for such an offence is 5 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.
The third principal offence is aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, the serious indictable offence being assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This involves a contravention of s 112(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
In addition to those three principal offences, you have asked me to take into account, in relation to the third principal offence, 3 matters on a Form 1 which I have certified. Those three matters are: one matter of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; and two matters of destroying or damaging property.
The facts surrounding the three principal offences, and the three matters on the certified Form 1, are contained in an Agreed Statement of Facts. Slightly recast by me as to style but not substance, the facts are as follows.
In October 2017, you were 24 years old and for about ten months you had been living in a domestic relationship with Eleni Stylianou. You had been living together in a home unit in a south-western suburb in Sydney. Throughout your relationship with her, but unknown to her, you were abusing illegal drugs, including but not limited to what is a scourge in this city, and that is ice.
On the afternoon of 19 October 2017, you and Ms Stylianou (who, from now on, I shall refer to by her first name, without intending any disrespect, because a number of members of her family need to be referred to in these remarks) had a verbal argument and, as a result of it, she packed her bags and she left that home unit in her motor vehicle.
Before she left, you followed her to the car park. You had her mobile phone, which you threw to the ground causing it to break and then you picked it up and threw it away.
It is the damage to that phone which constitutes one of the matters on the Form 1. Because…

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 Tanbuz

Details

AGLC: R v Tanbuz [2019] NSWDC 199
Case: [2019] NSWDC 199
Decision Date: 22 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tanbuz involved the defendant, Tanbuz, being charged with multiple offences, including aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant broke into a residence and assaulted the occupant, causing actual bodily harm, and was subsequently arrested and charged with the offences. The court had to determine whether the charges were substantiated and if so, what the appropriate sentence would be.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's actions constituted an aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, and whether the assault occasioning actual bodily harm charge was valid. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a harsher sentence. The prosecution argued that the defendant's actions met the criteria for both charges, while the defence claimed that the charges were excessive and that there were mitigating factors that should be taken into account.

The court found that the defendant's actions did indeed constitute an aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, as well as assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court also found that there were special circumstances present, namely the defendant's criminal history and the level of violence used during the commission of the crime. As a result, the court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years. The court considered this sentence to be appropriate given the severity of the offences and the need to deter similar behaviour in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offender sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years.

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 Tanbuz [2019] NSWDC 199
Hearing dates:	30 January 2019
Decision date:	22 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Offender sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - assault occasioning actual bodily - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence (actual bodily harm) - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act (NSW) 1900, ss59(1) and 112(2)
Cases Cited:	R v Edigarov [2001] NSWCCA 436
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mohammad Tanbuz (for the offender)
Representation:	Mr Walkowiak (ODPP) Ms Wasley (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2017/318140
Publication restriction:	Nil