R v Zraika

Case [2020] NSWDC 357


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zraika [2020] NSWDC 357
Hearing dates: Trial dates: 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 February 2020
Sentence hearing: 29 May 2020
Date of orders: 3 July 2020
Decision date: 03 July 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

See [77]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company – Joint Criminal Enterprise – Offender was not the principal offender – Guilty verdict by jury

SENTENCING – Plea of not guilty – Need for fact finding on sentence to accord with the case advanced at trial and accepted by the jury – Towards bottom of lower range of objective seriousness –Of prior good character –Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation despite absence of remorse and low likelihood of reoffending – Principles of parity – Where co-offenders pled guilty – Where co-offenders on conditional liberty at time of offending – Where  Offender’s other subjective circumstances more favourable than co-offenders– Imposition of ICO

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(2), 105A

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 7, 21A, 69

Cases Cited:

Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185

Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462

Maxwell v R [2007] NSWCCA 304; (2007) 177 A Crim R 498

R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220

R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; (2004) 149 A Crim R 167

Sahyoun v R (No 2) [2020] NSWCCA 95

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Sajah Zraika (the Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R. McCrudden (the Offender)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Peter Ayoub & Co (the Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/347531
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

  1. Sajah Zraika pleaded not guilty to one offence that she did, on 10 November 2017 at Miller in the State of New South Wales, break and enter the dwelling house of Oumaya Eid at Miller Road, and did commit a serious indictable offence therein, namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, she was in the company of Janene Tevelein and Zena Al-Hazzouri. This is an offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)1 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.

  2. On 20 February 2020, after a trial of some 7 days, the jury entered a verdict of guilty.

  3. Following a delay brought about by logistical arrangements affecting Sydney District Court and my own availability, I heard sentencing submissions on 29 May 2020.

Facts

Crown submissions

  1. The Crown proposed that the following facts should be found on sentence.

  2. At the time of the offence, the Victim resided at an address at Miller Road, Miller. Prior to the offence, the Victim and the Offender were close friends. The co-offender, Zena Al-Hazzouri, was also friends with Victim and prior to 10 November 2017 had been staying with the Victim at her house.

  3. Prior to attending the Victim’s…

Continue reading R v Zraika

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Zraika [2020] NSWDC 357
Case
[2020] NSWDC 357
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Zraika involved the defendant, Zraika, who was charged with aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in company. This matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. Zraika was alleged to have been part of a joint criminal enterprise, though he was not the principal offender. The jury found him guilty, and the case proceeded to the sentencing phase.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, given Zraika's plea of not guilty. It was necessary to conduct fact-finding to ensure the sentence aligned with the case advanced at trial and accepted by the jury. The court also had to assess the objective seriousness of the offence, which was considered towards the bottom of the lower range. Additionally, Zraika's prior good character, reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, absence of remorse, and low likelihood of reoffending were factors taken into account. The principles of parity, the guilty pleas of co-offenders, and their conditional liberty status at the time of the offence were also considered. Moreover, Zraika's other subjective circumstances were more favourable than those of his co-offenders.

The court determined that the appropriate sentence was an imprisonment control order (ICO), taking into account all the aforementioned factors. The sentencing decision was detailed in paragraph [77] of the judgment. This decision reflects the careful consideration of both the objective seriousness of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [77]

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.