R v Tarek Zahed - [2024] NSWSC 231

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarek Zahed [2024] NSWSC 231
Hearing dates: 1 March 2024
Decision date: 12 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Tarek Zahed, you are convicted of the offence of hindering an investigation of homicide.
(2) You are sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years 4 months, to commence on 28 August 2022, and expire on 27 December 2024.
(3) That will be followed by a parole period of 1 year 2 months, to expire on 27 February 2026.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – hindering investigation of homicide – guilty plea – relevant factors on sentence – objectively serious example of the offence – no persons convicted of homicide of deceased – where offender former national sergeant-at-arms of Comancheros – lengthy criminal history – commission of offence on parole serious aggravating feature – no remorse found – prospects of rehabilitation unclear – near fatal injuries inflicted on offender – death of brother in his presence – very significant physical injuries – psychological conditions – extremely restricted conditions of custody – special circumstances found – small reduction of non-parole period – sentence imposed

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Tarek Zahed (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay SC with T Lumsden (Crown)
I Hill KC with K Heath and P Lange (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
One Group Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/255623

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

On 5 February 2024, Mr Tarek Zahed (the offender) pleaded guilty to a single count in full satisfaction of a previous indictment that had averred the offence of murder. The new count alleged that, between 10 and 21 December 2014, he had arranged for the destruction of evidence constituted by a motor vehicle, with intent to hinder the police investigation of a serious indictable offence, that offence being the unlawful killing of Mr Youssef Assoum (the deceased). That killing had occurred on or about 11 December 2014.
The matter was stood over for proceedings on sentence on 1 March 2024, and, after a period of reflection and a short postponement, it falls to me to sentence the offender today.
When dealt with on indictment, the offence of hindering a police investigation carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years. Parliament has prescribed no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty is an important guidepost in this sentencing process.
Aggravating features on sentence, above and beyond the bare elements of the offence, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown, unless explicitly agreed. In contrast, mitigating features relied upon by the offender need only be proven on the balance of probabilities. Inevitably, some matters will remain unclear to me, and unable to be established to either standard of proof.

Objective features

The objective features of the offending can be shortly stated, based upon some agreed facts that were placed before me.
Between about 11:30 PM on 10 December 2014, and a little after midnight later that evening, the deceased was detained, restrained to the…

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 Tarek Zahed

Details

AGLC: R v Tarek Zahed [2024] NSWSC 231
Case: [2024] NSWSC 231
Decision Date: 12 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tarek Zahed, the appellant was charged with hindering the investigation of a homicide. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Tarek Zahed, had pleaded guilty to the charge of hindering the investigation of the homicide of a deceased individual. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Zahed, considering various factors, including his plea, the seriousness of the offence, and his criminal history.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. The court needed to determine if the offence was an objectively serious example and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court also considered Zahed's lengthy criminal history, his role as the former national sergeant-at-arms of the Comancheros, and the fact that he committed the offence while on parole. Additionally, the court examined whether there was any evidence of remorse and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the offence was an objectively serious example of hindering the investigation of a homicide, as no persons had been convicted of the homicide of the deceased. The court noted that Zahed's commission of the offence while on parole was a significant aggravating factor, and there was no evidence of remorse. The court also considered the near-fatal injuries inflicted on Zahed, the death of his brother in his presence, and his very significant physical and psychological injuries. However, the court found that the prospects of rehabilitation were unclear. Taking into account all relevant factors, the court determined that special circumstances existed and imposed a sentence with a small reduction of the non-parole period. The court also considered the extremely restricted conditions of custody that Zahed would face.

Orders