Regina v Khouzame - [1999] NSWSC 979

CITATION: Regina v Khouzame [1999] NSWSC 979

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70021/98

HEARING DATE(S): 02/08/99 - 12/08/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 September 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Adonis Khouzame

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J at 1

COUNSEL : D. Frearson (Crown)
P. Young (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: DPP (Crown)
Brenda Duchen (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Manslaughter and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act 1989

DECISION: Refer to pars 28, 29, 30

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MICHAEL GROVE J
Friday 24 September 1999
70021/98 - REGINA v ADONIS KHOUZAME
SENTENCE
1    HIS HONOUR : On 11 August 1999 Adonis (Eddie) Khouzame was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter of Caglar Vurangunes and guilty of assaulting Gokhan Kumru occasioning him actual bodily harm.
2    It is necessary to find facts consistent with those verdicts of the jury for the purpose of sentence. I am aware of course that the evidence contained a variety of versions and details of events and the following refers to matters about which I am satisfied to the requisite criminal standard of proof.
3    In the late afternoon of Sunday 9 November 1997 three teenaged boys, the victims whose names I have mentioned and Erdinc (Eddie) Tustas arrived in North Street Guildford in a motor car owned by Gokhan Kumru’s mother. The boys were of Turkish ethnicity. At least one of them was acquainted with Sarah Dawson, a girl who lived in a house in that street. The exact order of comings and goings is confused but some social exchange took place between the boys and Sarah Dawson as well as with other girls who were passing in the street, Ruby Raad and Lisa McCoy. At some stage the prisoner’s sister Ashty Khouzame was in the vicinity. I should state that I do not accept Ashty Khouzame as a witness of truth. Whilst the motive of the boys for their presence was undoubtedly flirtatious, I find that nothing was said or done by any of them towards any girl which could reasonably be regarded as offensive or provocative. I note that to a large extent Eddie Tustas remained aloof.
4    Ruby Raad resided in the house next door to the prisoner and his family. Although just under sixteen years of age, she was engaged to be married. Her ten year old brother Mohammed took some objection to his sister’s conversing with the visiting males. He threatened to tell her fiance. Truthfully he could tell that person no more than that his sister was part of a group of boys and girls chatting with each other in a public street in daylight hours. However, the boy Mohammed entered upon the prisoner’s premises and began calling out loudly and his behaviour attracted the prisoner to the front balcony of the upper storey of the house.
5    Verbal abuse came to be exchanged between the prisoner on the balcony and the visitors who remained outside of the premises in…

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 Khouzame

Details

AGLC: Regina v Khouzame [1999] NSWSC 979
Case: [1999] NSWSC 979
Decision Date: 24 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Khouzame, the respondent was charged with manslaughter and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent had been involved in a fight in which the victim was fatally injured. The respondent was convicted of manslaughter and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The legal issues before the court were whether the manslaughter conviction should be quashed and, if not, whether the sentence should be set aside or varied.

The court held that the manslaughter conviction was not affected by any error in the direction to the jury and should not be quashed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and should not be set aside or varied. The court noted that the respondent's actions had caused the death of the victim and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime. The court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had cooperated with the authorities.

The court found that the sentence was appropriate and should not be varied. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and that the respondent's actions had caused the death of the victim. The court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had cooperated with the authorities.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of imprisonment for a term of 11 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Orders