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 2020Date 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: 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 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:
Solicitors:
Mr R. McCrudden (the Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Peter Ayoub & Co (the Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/347531 Publication restriction: N/A
Judgment
-
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.
-
On 20 February 2020, after a trial of some 7 days, the jury entered a verdict of guilty.
-
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
-
The Crown proposed that the following facts should be found on sentence.
-
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.
-
Prior to attending the Victim’s…
Continue reading R v Zraika
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Zraika [2020] NSWDC 357
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.