Legal Research
Cases
R v Touma

R v Touma

Case [2008] NSWSC 1475 24 October 2008

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Plea at the earliest opportunity

Co-operation by legal representatives

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina (C'Wealth) v Touma [2008] NSWSC 1475

HEARING DATE(S): 12/09/08; 10/10/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 October 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: Mazen Touma, in relation to the first charge in the indictment, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 14 years commencing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 7 November 2019. In relation to count 2 in the indictment, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for 14 years. This sentence is to commence on 8 November 2005 and will expire on 7 November 2019. In relation to the third charge in the indictment, I sentence you to a term of imprisosnment for 8 years. This sentence should commence on 8 November 2005 and expire on 7 November 2013. In relation to the fourth charge in the indictment, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for 8 years. This sentence should commence on 8 November 2005 and expire on 7 November 2013. The sentences sin respect of counts 2, 3 and 4 are to be served concurrently with the sentence in relation to count 1, and with each other. In relation to the four sentences, I fix a single non-parole period in respect of those sentences for 10 years and 6 months comme4ncing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 7 May 2016.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Terrorism offences - Principles applicable - Plea at the earliest opportunity - Co-operation by legal representatives - need for general detterence and protection of the community - Failure of accused to give evidence in sentencing proceedings - Weight to be given to statements in forensic psychologist's report

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995

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]
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; [2005] 215 ALR 213 at [39]
R v Barot [2007] EWCA Crim 1119 at [45]
R v Cameron [2002] 209 CLR 339 at [11]
R v Lodhi [2006] 199 FLR 364
R v Martin (1999) 1 Cr App R (477 at 480)
R v Paull (1990) 20 NSWLR 47
R v PB [2008] NSWCCA 109 at (30)
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 per Smart AJ at [58]
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247 at (110) and (111)

PARTIES: Regina (C'Wealth) v Mazen Touma

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/2455001

COUNSEL: G Bellew Sc; S McNaughton - Crown
S Hanley; Ms R Mathur - Offender

SOLICITORS: C'Wealth DPP - Crown
Burke & Elphick Lawyers - Offender

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

WHEALY J

PARRAMATTA: FRIDAY 24 October 2008

2007/2455001 - REGINA v Mazen TOUMA

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 12 September 2008 Mazen Touma (the offender) pleaded guilty to each of four charges contained in an indictment presented against him on that day. 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 Touma

Details

AGLC: R v Touma [2008] NSWSC 1475
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1475
Decision Date: 24 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Touma involved the defendant, Touma, who was convicted on multiple terrorism-related charges. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Touma faced sentencing for his involvement in a terrorism plot. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for Touma's offences, the consideration of factors such as his early plea, cooperation with legal representatives, the need for general deterrence, and the protection of the community. Additionally, the court had to consider the weight to be given to statements in a forensic psychologist's report, as well as the defendant's decision not to give evidence in the sentencing proceedings.

In addressing these issues, the court emphasised the significance of Touma's early plea and cooperation with his legal representatives as mitigating factors. However, the court also highlighted the necessity of general deterrence and the protection of the community in cases involving terrorism offences. The court found that Touma's failure to give evidence during the sentencing proceedings should be considered as an aggravating factor. Furthermore, the court took into account the statements in the forensic psychologist's report, which provided insights into Touma's mental state and potential risks he posed to the community. Ultimately, the court balanced these factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria determined that Touma's sentence should reflect both the mitigating and aggravating factors presented in the case. The court imposed a custodial sentence, recognising the gravity of Touma's terrorism-related offences and the need for general deterrence. The court's decision also acknowledged the importance of protecting the community from potential threats posed by Touma. The sentence imposed was a result of a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors, including the forensic psychologist's report and Touma's decision not to give evidence. This decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving terrorism offences, highlighting the principles applicable in determining appropriate sentences in such cases.

Orders