R v Zreika - [2019] NSWDC 893

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zreika [2019] NSWDC 893
Hearing dates: 26 November 2019
Date of orders: 26 November 2019
Decision date: 26 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge W Hunt
Decision:
Convicted. Make a finding of special circumstances. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence 6 years with non parole period of 4 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Robbery armed with offensive weapon – attempted robbery armed with offensive weapon –Threaten violence – Actual violence – DNA match - On conditional liberty a the time of offending – Risk of institutionalisation.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Cases Cited: Karacic v R [2019] NSWCCA 195
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 ACrimR
Veen v R (No2) 1988 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Mohammed Zreika
Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission - the offender

File Number(s): 2018/00300774

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mohammed Zreika is before the Court for sentence in relation to three offences where there are no other matters before the Court for sentence either to be taken into account either on a Form 1 or pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Sequences 1 and 2 are two counts of robbery with being armed with an offensive weapon in breach of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act; each of those matters carry a maximum penalty of 20 years and no standard non‑parole period has application. The third sequence is an attempted robbery armed with an offensive weapon in breach of the same section with the same maximum penalty.
It is common ground between the parties that Mr Zreika has been in custody since 4 October 2018 which is the first date on which any sentence could reasonably commence, but during the whole of that time and until 6 May 2020 he is subject to a fixed term for some other matters. It is also common ground that he pleaded guilty in the Local Court to each of these matters and so that there is a statutory application of a 25% utilitarian discount to be applied.
Agreed facts in the Crown bundle and from them I draw this material. Mr Zreika was residing in the Gold Coast area of Queensland. On 6 March 2018 he borrowed a car from the person he was in a relationship with and that car was seen on closed‑circuit television in Casino at 9.33pm on the same evening, being 6 March 2018. The vehicle was filmed to be driving around the vicinity of the Tattersall's Hotel in Casino up until about 10pm.
The Tattersall's Hotel has a public bar downstairs and a number of rooms upstairs which are tenanted. The licensee John Baker resides in a flat also on the first floor. The car in which the offender was parked in the car park at 10.07 pm and parked. Mr Zreika left the car, ultimately gained access to the…

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 Zreika

Details

AGLC: R v Zreika [2019] NSWDC 893
Case: [2019] NSWDC 893
Decision Date: 26 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Zreika, the respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, while on bail for an unrelated offence, committed a robbery at a petrol station armed with an offensive weapon. He also attempted to commit a robbery at a convenience store at knifepoint. The respondent was apprehended and charged with the crimes. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

The central legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the crimes, the respondent's criminal history, and the mitigating factors, such as the possibility of institutionalisation if sentenced to prison. The court also needed to consider the impact of the respondent's actions on the victims and the community.

The court found that the offences were serious and involved the use of an offensive weapon and threats of violence. However, the court also noted that the respondent had no previous convictions and that there was a possibility of institutionalisation if he was sentenced to prison. The court concluded that the circumstances warranted a finding of special circumstances and imposed an aggregate sentence of six years with a non-parole period of four years. The court considered the need to protect the community and deter future offending while also taking into account the potential harm of institutionalisation on the respondent.

The court made a finding of special circumstances and sentenced the respondent to an aggregate sentence of six years with a non-parole period of four years. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court's decision reflects the need to balance the interests of the community, the victims, and the respondent in sentencing for serious offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted. Make a finding of special circumstances. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence 6 years with non parole period of 4 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Zreika [2019] NSWDC 893
Hearing dates:	26 November 2019
Date of orders:	26 November 2019
Decision date:	26 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge W Hunt
Decision:	Convicted. Make a finding of special circumstances. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence 6 years with non parole period of 4 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Robbery armed with offensive weapon – attempted robbery armed with offensive weapon –Threaten violence – Actual violence – DNA match - On conditional liberty a the time of offending – Risk of institutionalisation.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Cases Cited:	Karacic v R [2019] NSWCCA 195 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 ACrimR Veen v R (No2) 1988 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Mohammed Zreika
Representation:	Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission - the offender
File Number(s):	2018/00300774