Regina v Ibrahim - [2005] NSWSC 1028

CITATION:
Regina v Ibrahim [2005] NSWSC 1028

HEARING DATE(S): 04/07/2005, 30/09/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

30 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Howie J at 1

DECISION:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 17 months with a non-parole period of 12 months. The sentence is suspended upon condition that the offender enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for the period of the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing for Hinder Police Investigation

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - s 315(1)(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 12(3), 43

CASES CITED:
R v Ahmad [2005] NSWSC 911
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117

PARTIES:
Regina v Hassan Ibrahim

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/2345

COUNSEL:
T.R. Bailey - Crown
J. Doris - Offender

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown
Galloways Solicitors - Offender

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 30 SEPTEMBER 2005

2004/2345 REGINA v HASSAN IBRAHIM
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 4 July 2005 the offender Hassan Ibrahim pleaded guilty to a charge that between 11 June 2002 and 15 July 2002 he encouraged Walid Ahmad to avoid police investigations with intent to hinder the apprehension of the said Walid Ahmad for the serious indictable offence of feloniously slaying Mayez Danny. This is an offence contrary to s 315(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years.

2 The offender is the fourth person to be sentenced by me following an incident in Greenacre in suburban Sydney during which Ahmad shot and killed Danny. Two of those persons, one being Ahmad's wife, were sentenced for hindering the police investigation of the killing of Danny. Each received a gaol sentence, although in one case the sentence was ordered to be served by periodic detention and in the other the sentence was suspended.

3 The facts can be stated very briefly for present purposes. The events leading up to the killing have been set out in the sentencing remarks in respect of Ahmad at [2005] NSWSC 911 and it is unnecessary to repeat them again in any detail. It is sufficient to note that the killing arose out of a conflict between two groups within the Lebanese community that resulted in a large number of men, including the offender, gathering in Claremont Avenue, Greenacre on 10 June 2002. During that hostile confrontation Ahmad shot Danny after the latter had himself discharged a firearm wounding Ahmad's uncle. After the killing the crowd dispersed and Ahmad went into hiding. As he was leaving the scene Mr Hamzy picked up a pistol lying on the ground and later disposed of it in the bush. That act gave rise to a charge of hindering the investigation of the shooting and Hamzy was ultimately sentenced for that offence.

4 While Ahmad was in hiding from the police, he was in telephone contact with both his wife and the offender. With full knowledge of what had occurred they independently gave…

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 Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ibrahim [2005] NSWSC 1028
Case: [2005] NSWSC 1028
Decision Date: 30 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Ibrahim involved the defendant, Ibrahim, who was charged with hindering a police investigation. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Ibrahim was alleged to have provided false information to the police, thereby obstructing their investigation into a serious criminal offence. The case raised significant questions about the appropriate sentence for such conduct, given the potential impact on law enforcement and public safety.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Ibrahim's actions. It had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The prosecution argued for a substantial sentence to reflect the seriousness of hindering a police investigation, while the defence contended for a more lenient penalty, emphasising Ibrahim's lack of criminal history and his cooperation with authorities.

The County Court Judge, in delivering the judgment, considered the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The judge noted the significant impact of Ibrahim's actions on the police investigation, which delayed the apprehension of the actual offenders. The court found that the offence warranted a custodial sentence but also recognised the mitigating factors presented by the defence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Ibrahim to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need to balance the interests of justice with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for Ibrahim, along with directions for the preparation of a pre-sentence report to inform the sentencing decision. The court emphasised the importance of deterring similar conduct in the future while also considering the potential for rehabilitation. The decision provides guidance on sentencing for offences involving the hindrance of police investigations, highlighting the need for courts to carefully balance various sentencing considerations.

Orders