Regina v Ahmad - [2005] NSWSC 911

CITATION:
Regina v Ahmad [2005] NSWSC 911

HEARING DATE(S): 04/07/2005, 23/08/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

9 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Howie J at 1

DECISION:
In respect of the offence of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months. That sentence commenced on 3 December 2002 and expired on 2 March 2004. In respect of the offences on the second and third counts on the indictment the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months. Those sentences commenced on 3 December 2003 and expired on 2 September 2004. In respect of the offence of manslaughter the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years 4 months to date from 3 December 2003. There is to be a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 3 December 2003 and to expire on 2 December 2009 the date upon which he is eligible to be released to parole.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing for maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, being in company assault occasioning actual bodily harm and manslaughter.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - ss 35(1)(a), 35(2), 59(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 21(a)(2), 21A(3), 44

CASES CITED:
R v Dibb [2003] NSWCCA 117
Cioban v R [2003] NSWCCA 304
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43

PARTIES:
Regina v Walid Ahmad

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/2344

COUNSEL:
T.R. Bailey - Crown
I. Barker QC with M. Coroneos - Offender

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown
A. Houda - Offender

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 2005

2004/2344 REGINA v WALID AHMAD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Walid Ahmad was committed to this Court for trial on a number of charges including murder. On 4 July 2004 he pleaded guilty to a charge alleging that on 11 June 2002 at Greenacre he did feloniously slay Mayez Danny. The Crown indicated that the plea of guilty to the offence of manslaughter was based upon the Crown’s acceptance of the reasonable possibility that the offender shot the deceased in self-defence although the offender acknowledges by the plea that this act was unreasonable for his own defence in all of the circumstances surrounding the killing.

2 On 23 August 2005 the offender was arraigned on a further indictment containing three charges and pleaded guilty to each count. The first count alleged that on 9 June 2002 he did maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm on Khaled Hammoud. The second count alleged that on 11 June 2002 he maliciously wounded Mohammed Khalifa. These are both offences contrary to s 35(1)(a) of the Crimes Act for which a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment is prescribed. The third count alleged that on 11 June 2002 at Greenacre in company with persons unknown he assaulted Khaled El Ahmed and occasioned to him actual bodily harm. This is an offence contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act. It also carries a maximum penalty of…

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 Regina v Ahmad

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ahmad [2005] NSWSC 911
Case: [2005] NSWSC 911
Decision Date: 9 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Ahmad, the respondent was convicted of multiple serious offences, including maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, being in company during an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentencing for the respondent's multiple convictions.

The court was tasked with assessing the severity and circumstances of each offence, the respondent's criminal history, and any mitigating factors that might be relevant. Given the gravity of the crimes, the court had to consider both the cumulative effect of the offences and the individual impact of each one. The court also needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with any potential for rehabilitation. The legal principles guiding the court's decision included the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, the proportionality of the sentence to the crimes committed, and the overarching objective of justice in the individual case.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondent's actions were particularly heinous, given the level of premeditation and violence involved. The court noted that the respondent had a previous criminal record, which was a significant aggravating factor. After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that the cumulative sentence should reflect the severity and nature of the offences. The court imposed a sentence that accounted for the multiple charges, ensuring that it was both punitive and served as a deterrent, while also considering the respondent's potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that a lengthy term of imprisonment was necessary to uphold the principles of justice and public safety.

Orders