R v Zaro - [2007] NSWSC 756

CITATION: R v Zaro [2007] NSWSC 756

HEARING DATE(S): 29/06/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 years 6 months to date from 18 April 2004 and to expire on 17 October 2020, the date upon which the offender will be eligible for release to parole. There is to be a balance of term of 5 years and 6 months to date from 18 October 2020 and to expire on 17 April 2026.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Conviction of murder after trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 23A

CASES CITED: R v SY [2003] NSWCCA 291
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 237, 124 A Crim R 438

PARTIES: Regina v Jalal Zaro

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1289

COUNSEL: A. Robertson - Crown
G.D. Wendler/J.A. Dalzell - Offender

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Van Houten, Solicitors - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 13 JULY 2007

2005/1289 REGINA v JALAL ZARO
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 His Honour: On 24 May 2007 a jury convicted the offender of murder. The charge related to the fatal stabbing of an 18 year old man on 17 April 2004.

2 The ultimate issue argued before the jury was whether, at the time of the stabbing, the offender was mentally ill. Although there was a question raised as to whether the offender had the intent for murder because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs, it was ultimately accepted that the offender had acted at least with the intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm upon the deceased. There was also an issue left to the jury as to whether the offender should be found guilty of manslaughter by reason of the defence of substantial impairment but there was little evidence upon which the jury could have been persuaded that he was suffering from an abnormality of mind within s 23A of the Crimes Act once they put to one side the fact that the offender was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs as the section required them to do.

3 It is clear from the verdict that the jury was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender came within the scope of the defence of mental illness according to the M’Naghten rules. This was notwithstanding the evidence of a psychologist that he did and the quite bizarre nature of the killing and the offender’s conduct immediately thereafter.

4 The offender claims to have no recollection of the events on the night of the stabbing. Initially his amnesia was as to the events at the deceased’s home shortly before the stabbing but in evidence before the jury he said that he had no recollection of any event from about 2 April 2004 until he arrived in prison on remand. The history of the events surrounding the killing chiefly comes from a young man named Christopher who…

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 Zaro

Details

AGLC: R v Zaro [2007] NSWSC 756
Case: [2007] NSWSC 756
Decision Date: 13 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Zaro, the defendant was convicted of murder following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case arose from the death of an individual, and the defendant was found guilty of the crime. The appeal against sentence was the primary focus of the court's consideration.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles and factors to be considered when determining an appropriate sentence for a murder conviction. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with any mitigating circumstances and assess the overall impact of the sentence on the community and the defendant.

The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of taking another person's life. The defendant's background, character, and any potential mitigating factors were considered. The court found that while there were some mitigating aspects, they did not sufficiently outweigh the heinous nature of the crime. The sentence was determined to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and its impact on the victim and society.

The court's decision resulted in a sentence that was both a reflection of the crime's severity and a consideration of the defendant's circumstances. The final orders confirmed the conviction and imposed a sentence that the court deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders