R v Youseff (No 4) - [2025] NSWSC 125

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Youseff (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 125
Hearing dates: 12 November 2024, 14 February 2025
Date of orders: 28 February 2025
Decision date: 28 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: McNaughton J
Decision:
Mr Youseff is sentenced to imprisonment for 23 years and 6 months. The Court sets a non-parole period of 16 years commencing on 31 October 2022, and an additional term of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 31 October 2038 and ending on 30 April 2046.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – where offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm – where offending involved use of a weapon – where offending involved a grave risk of death to another person – where Bugmy factors – where reduced moral culpability – where special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 5A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 30E, 44, 54A, 61

Cases Cited:
Bugmyv The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Carreno v R [2023] NSWCCA 20
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Burns (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 140
R v Carbone [2022] NSWSC 373
R v Chamma; R v Hicks (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1057
R v Dion [2021] NSWSC 1043
R v Hickson (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 340
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Titan Gilkes [2025] NSWSC 23
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Bahra Youseff (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Sloane (Crown)
J Stratton SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Just Defence Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/00259263
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In the early hours of 30 November 2020, Adnan Salameh was with his girlfriend in her granny flat in the Sydney suburb of Tregear when two men, one carrying a shotgun, both fully disguised, entered. Mr Salameh was shot twice and died from his wounds shortly afterwards. He was 30 years old, and the beloved son of Adel and Najah Salameh.
One year and nine months later, on 31 August 2022, the offender, Bahra Youseff, was arrested and charged by police with Mr Salameh’s murder. He was refused bail on that date.
Mr Youseff was arraigned before a jury panel in the Supreme Court of New South Wales at King Street, on 19 August 2024 on one charge that he, on 30 November 2020, at Tregear in the State of New South Wales, did murder Adnan Salameh. He pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded and, on 19 September 2024, the jury retired to consider its verdict. On 1 October 2024, the jury returned with its verdict of guilty. The sentence hearing for Mr Youseff was conducted over two part-days, 12 November 2024 and 14…

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 Youseff (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Youseff (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 125
Case: [2025] NSWSC 125
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Youseff (No 4), the defendant was convicted of murder, and the matter before the court was the imposition of a sentence. The court was required to consider the nature of the crime, including the fact that the offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm and used a weapon, resulting in the death of the victim. Additionally, the court had to consider the Bugmy factors and the reduced moral culpability of the offender, as well as any special circumstances.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate weight to be given to the various sentencing considerations, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's culpability, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court had to balance these considerations to arrive at an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account any relevant mitigating factors. In this case, the court found that the offender's reduced moral culpability and the presence of special circumstances warranted a reduced sentence.

The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for the offender was a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court found that this sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account the reduced moral culpability of the offender and the presence of special circumstances. The court considered the Bugmy factors and determined that they did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. Overall, the court found that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders