R v Zaoui
[2010] NSWDC 179
•10 June 2010
CITATION: R v ZAOUI [2010] NSWDC 179 HEARING DATE(S): 10 June 2010 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 10 June 2010 JURISDICTION: Criminal JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ DECISION: Appeal partially allowed CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Severity Appeal - Obtain money by deception PARTIES: The Crown
Samir ZaouiFILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/00239616; DC 2009/00239656; DC 2009/00239692; DC 2010/00065145 SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: Samir Zaoui hit upon a remarkably simple way of defrauding people of money. He would go into a small business, usually a pizza store or something similar, and say that his car had broken down, it needed a new battery and the NRMA wanted some money to replace the battery. He must have been quite convincing because he seems to have been very successful. There are more than fifty occasions when the offender has, through those means, obtained money from people by that deception. On occasions there was not enough money in the till to pay him the money that he required and so employees would provide their own money. On one occasion he even went with an employee to an ATM, it did not work so they went to a second ATM before finally the employee handed over $400. This money appears to have been spent by Mr Zaoui on drugs. He was an industrious, hardworking conman.
2 The magistrate dealing with these very many offences dealt with them in various ways, but they ultimately ended up with an effective sentence of imprisonment of two years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. That is, there was no finding of special circumstances made. The offender has a long term drug history and has been provisionally accepted into Odyssey House. Ms Neil asks that I make a finding of special circumstances, extend the period of eligibility of the parole at the expense of the non-parole period, but nevertheless order that it be a condition of his parole that he enter into residential drug rehabilitation. Of course, that could mean that the offender actually spends longer in custody than he would at present. If, for example, when his non-parole period expires there is no suitable residential rehabilitation program for him, or he does not qualify for some particular reason, he will do two years in custody rather than eighteen months as is presently the case. Ms Neil spoke to her client about that and Mr Zaoui indicated his willingness and indeed a desire to have his non-parole period reduced and his period of eligibility for parole extended on the firm understanding that he would only get parole if he entered residential rehabilitation.
3 In view of the benefits not only to Mr Zaoui but also to the community, in particular small businesses, if Mr Zaoui is able to deal with his drug problems I propose to grant Ms Neil’s application.
4 The order I make, in relation to the offences for which imprisonment was imposed, with a commencement date of 24 March 2010, the appeals are dismissed.
5 For each of the offences for which sentences of imprisonment were imposed to commence on 24 March 2011 the appeals are allowed. I sentence the offender to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of four months to date from 24 March 2011 and a head sentence of twelve months. This means that the non-parole period will expire on 23 July 2011.
6 As well as the normal conditions of parole it is Mr Zaoui’s release to parole is conditional on him entering and remaining at a residential drug rehabilitation program upon his release from custody, and that the period of residential rehabilitation be determined by the Probation and Parole authority in consultation with the provider of the residential rehabilitation program.
7 I direct that whilst in custody he is to be provided with assistance by the prison authorities in determining an appropriate residential rehabilitation and in making necessary application for that rehabilitation program.
0
0