CITATION: R v Yousif [2006] NSWDC 98 HEARING DATE(S): 18/08/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
28 September 2006JUDGMENT OF: Conlon SC DCJ at 1 DECISION: See para 40-43 CATCHWORDS: Sentence for multiple armed robbery offences LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 3A, 5, 22 CASES CITED: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
The Queen v De Simone (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v R [2000] NSWCCA 163
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383PARTIES: Regina
Zia YousifFILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/3002 COUNSEL: Mr P Nagle (offender) SOLICITORS: Mr Y Astar, Mr M Stollery (NSW DPP)
Mr M Abboud (Michael Abboud & Co)
SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Zia Yousif pleaded guilty in the Liverpool Local Court on 14 December 2005 to seven offences of armed robbery committed between 26 June and 19 July 2005. He was committed for sentence to the District Court.
2 On 17 February 2006 before his Honour Sides J at the Campbelltown District Court an indictment was presented that contained four of the abovementioned offences of armed robbery and the offender pleaded guilty.
3 On 18 August 2006 at the Campbelltown District Court the offender appeared before me for sentence. He confirmed his earlier pleas of guilty to those four counts of armed robbery committed between 26 June and 19 July 2005 and he asked the Court to take into account four matters on a Form 1 schedule being offences of armed robbery committed during that same period. The maximum penalty for each offence of armed robbery is twenty years imprisonment.
4 The full statement of facts is contained in the bundle of documents tendered by the Crown and marked Exhibit 1. Briefly stated they are as follows.
5 The first offence occurred at the BP Lansvale Service Station, Hume Highway, Lansvale on 26 June 2005 at 2.20am. Having already entered the service station to make a purchase the offender, the co-offender Ferhat Duzenli and a young person FD re-entered and approached the console operator. The offender then jumped the counter with the two other offenders kicking open the security door to the counter area. The offender produced a knife to the console operator and demanded cash and cigarettes. Approximately $517 in cash was removed from the cash register while his co-offenders removed approximately $1,820 in assorted brands of cigarettes before all three fled the scene.
6 Good quality CCTV footage was obtained together with the offender’s fingerprints, no property was recovered. When interviewed by the police on 22 July 2005 the offender identified himself and his co-offenders in the CCTV footage and he agreed he was in possession of the knife. He informed police the cigarettes were later sold to an unknown male who owned a shop.
7 The second offence, count 2 in the indictment, occurred later that same evening, that is 26 June 2005 at about 3.55am, at the Caltex Woolworths Service Station at Old…
Continue reading R v Yousif
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Yousif [2006] NSWDC 98
- Case
- [2006] NSWDC 98
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentencing principles and the application of those principles to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the severity and frequency of the defendant's criminal conduct, the use of a firearm, the impact on the victims, and any mitigating factors that may have been present. Additionally, the court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The court began by acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, which involved the use of a firearm and caused significant fear and distress. The court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated a high level of premeditation and a disregard for the rights and safety of others. The use of a firearm in the commission of the robberies added to the gravity of the offences. The court also considered the impact on the victims, who experienced significant trauma as a result of the defendant's actions. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the defendant's culpability was high and that the sentence should reflect the need for punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community.
Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the severity of the offences, the defendant's culpability, and the need for deterrence. The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a corrective services facility for a specified period, ensuring that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed. The court's reasoning and the final orders are detailed in paragraphs 40 to 43 of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See para 40-43
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.