R v Umar - [2014] VSC 645

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0011

THE QUEEN

ABDULAAHI UMAR

---

JUDGE:	BEALE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	11 September and 4 December 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 December 2014
DATE OF REASONS:	17 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Umar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 645

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury – Stabbing –Methylamphetamine use - Plea of guilty - Serious violent offender – Offender affected by post-traumatic stress disorder and intellectual disability - Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Protection of community

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P D’Arcy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Shaw	David Barrese & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Please stand, Mr Umar.

You have pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing serious injury contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

The maximum penalty for intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years’ imprisonment.

I sentence you to 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.

I declare that you have already served 556 days (excluding today) by way of presentence detention.

I declare pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘the Act’) that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 8 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months.

I declare that I have sentenced you as a serious violent offender pursuant to Part 2A of the Act and note that the Crown did not seek a disproportionate sentence under s 6D(b) of the Act.

I make the disposal order sought against you.

I will now give my reasons for the sentence that I have imposed. You may be seated.

The offence

On 8 June 2013, you and a friend, Abdulla Hassan, the victim in this matter, purchased some methylamphetamine or ‘ice.’

Later that day, the two of you visited Hassan’s friend, John Samele, at his home in Footscray. There, all three of you injected yourselves with ice,[1] after which you all drove to an address in Kew to collect some of Hassan’s belongings and then onto your unit in Reservoir.
[1]I note that your counsel told me during the plea hearing on 11 September 2014 (Plea transcript 15.13-15.16) that in addition to injecting yourself with ice on the day of the offence, you also consumed six cans of mixed bourbon and smoked 3g of cannabis (similarly, see also the report of neuropsychologist Associate Professor Warrick Brewer, dated 2 September 2014 (‘Brewer’) at p 4). Psychiatrist Dr Danny Sullivan who, at the request of your lawyers, assessed you in prison in October 2013 and compiled a report dated 16 January 2014 (‘Sullivan’) noted at [28] of his report that ‘[a]t the time of the alleged offence, Mr Umar stated that he would have had ice in his system but had had no other drugs all day.’

Whilst the three of you were…

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 Umar

Details

AGLC: R v Umar [2014] VSC 645
Case: [2014] VSC 645
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Umar was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Umar, pleaded guilty to a charge of intentionally causing serious injury to another person by stabbing him with a knife. The incident occurred in the context of a dispute involving the supply of methylamphetamine. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, taking into account various mitigating factors and the need for community protection.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Umar, considering his guilty plea, his history of drug use, the circumstances of the offence, and his personal circumstances, including his post-traumatic stress disorder and intellectual disability. The prosecution argued for a substantial custodial sentence to ensure community protection, while the defence sought a sentence that recognised the defendant's personal vulnerabilities and poor prospects for rehabilitation.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of the offence and the need to protect the community. However, it also considered the defendant's personal circumstances and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court determined that, despite the gravity of the offence, a non-custodial sentence was appropriate due to the defendant's intellectual disability and the presence of other mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months, to be served in a facility that could provide appropriate support and treatment for the defendant's conditions.

The court ordered that Umar be placed under supervision for a period of five years following his release from prison. This decision was made to ensure that Umar receives the necessary support and monitoring to reduce the risk of reoffending, while also providing an opportunity for his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders