R v Zeidan - [2009] VSC 137

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1435 of 2008

THE QUEEN

YOUSEFF ZEIDAN

EVETTE ZEIDAN

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Zeidan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 137

---

Plea of Guilty – assisting an offender – s 325(1) Crimes Act 1958 – low level assistance – not for gain – health and age of offenders – cooperation and remorse – sentence of imprisonment - wholly suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. C. Barbagallo	Office of Public Prosecution
For Youseff Zeidan	Mr. P. Dunn Q.C.	Pica Criminal Lawyers
For Yvette Zeidan	Ms. J. Dixon S.C	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Youssef Zeidan and Evette Zeidan, you have each pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender, being Antonios Sajih Mokbel, at Elphinstone between 10 October 2006 and 18 November 2006, pursuant to s.325(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for the offence is five years. You have each pleaded guilty at the earlier possible stage and neither of you have any prior convictions.

Youssef Zeidan, you are currently aged 63, having been born on 4 April 1946. You Evette Zeidan are currently aged 55, having been born on 25 October 1953. You were respectively 60 and 52 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.

The offence to which you have pleaded guilty relates to Antonios Sajih Mokbel and his absconding from the Supreme Court on 20 March 2006. You had no actual involvement in relation to his initial absconding but you assisted him at later stage prior to him leaving the country. A number of other persons also assisted Mr Mokbel in terms of his absconding from the court and his escape from the jurisdiction, including his ultimate flight to Greece. You have no connection with any of those persons who are Byron Pantazis, Foula Pantazis, Yvonne Warfe, Angela Nissirios, George Elias, Chafic Issa and Spiros Katopodis. Your involvement is quite separate and distinct from the involvement of those other persons apart from meeting some of them on the morning that Mokbel was collected from your premises.

The background to the circumstances relating to this offending is that Mokbel was on trial in the Supreme Court before His Honour Justice Gillard for importation of cocaine. On 20 March 2006 he failed to appear. The trial continued, he was convicted and on 31 March 2006 a sentence of imprisonment was imposed on him in his absence. Shortly after his failure to appear it would seem that Mokbel began hiding out in a rural property near Bonnie Doon which was owned by George Elias. He was able to live as a fugitive from the law as a result of assistance provided to him by Elias, Issa, Pantazis, Joseph Mansour, Bartholomew Rizzo, Christopher Ferraro and others, in terms of the provision of accommodation, food and…

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 Zeidan

Details

AGLC: R v Zeidan [2009] VSC 137
Case: [2009] VSC 137
Decision Date: 8 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Zeidan, the defendant was charged with assisting an offender under section 325(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. The accused, Mr Zeidan, admitted to providing minor assistance to an offender, without any personal gain. The nature of the assistance was relatively low-level, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that would reflect the circumstances of the case. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues for the court to address were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the defendant's assistance, and whether the sentence should be custodial or non-custodial. Given that Mr Zeidan provided low-level assistance, did not benefit personally from his actions, and demonstrated cooperation and remorse, the court needed to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the underlying offence. The court also considered the health and age of the offenders, as well as the potential deterrence effect of the sentence.

The County Court found that Mr Zeidan's assistance was not significant, and he had no personal gain from his actions. The court also took into account the cooperation and remorse demonstrated by the defendant. These factors, combined with the health and age of the offenders, led the court to determine that a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate. The court considered that this sentence would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and deterrence. The court ultimately sentenced Mr Zeidan to a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders