Regina v Mohamed Sanoussi - [2005] NSWCCA 323

CITATION:
Regina v Mohamed Sanoussi [2005] NSWCCA 323

HEARING DATE(S): 25 July 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

16 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Studdert J; Bell J; Latham J

DECISION:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted. (2) The appeal against the sentences imposed is allowed and the sentences imposed in the District Court are quashed. (3) In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced as follows:- Counts 1 and 6: Three years' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2000, expiring on 25 September 2003. Count 3: Eleven years three months' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2000, expiring 25 December 2011. A non parole period of five years is specified, to expire on 25 September 2005. Count 4: Eight years' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2000, expiring on 25 September 2008. A non-parole period of four years is specified, to expire 25 September 2004. Count 2: Three years' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2002 expiring on 25 September 2005. Count 5: Eight years' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2002, to expire on 25 September 2010. A non parole period of three years is specified, to expire on 25 September 2005. Charge 1 (30 August 2000): Eleven years' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2005, expiring on 25 September 2016. A non parole period of five years is specified, to expire on 25 September 2010. Charge 2: Three years' imprisonment to date from 26 September 2005, expiring on 25 September 2008. The first date upon which the applicant will be eligible for release to parole is 25 September 2010.

CATCHWORDS:
Aggravated sexual assault - detention of complainant - offences committed in company when a juvenile - planning - offences committed as principal in the first degree distinguished from offences committed as aider and abetter - totality.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act.

CASES CITED:
R v AEM & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239 at par 41
R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
R v Elomar [2000] NSWCCA 431
R v FF [2000] NSWCCA 493 at pars 28 - 33
R v AD [2005] NSWCCA 208
R v Mahmoud Sanoussi [2005] NSWCCA 322
R v Andrews [2001] NSWCCA 428
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 62 - 63
GAS v R 217 CLR 198

PARTIES:
Regina v Mohamed Sanoussi

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/289

COUNSEL:
R. Cogswell SC/D. Arnott (Crown)
P. Bodor QC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (Crown)
Heenan & Company Solicitors (Applicant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
01/11/1055

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Finnane DCJ

2005/289

STUDDERT J
BELL J
LATHAM J
Friday 16 September 2005

REGINA v MOHAMED SANOUSSI

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The applicant, Mohamed Sanoussi, seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Finnane QC (the Judge) on 6 September 2002. The applicant pleaded guilty to eight counts charging various sexual offences and detention offences which were committed against three complainants on two separate occasions…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Mohamed Sanoussi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWCCA 323
Decision Date: 16 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Mohamed Sanoussi, the appellant was convicted of multiple charges including aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, and deprivation of liberty. The victim, who was a juvenile at the time, was detained and subjected to sexual abuse. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The central legal issues revolved around the nature of the appellant's involvement in the offences, particularly whether he acted as a principal in the first degree or merely as an aider and abetter. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentencing principles, particularly the concept of totality in sentencing for multiple related offences.

The court addressed the distinction between principal and secondary involvement in criminal acts, emphasising the need for clear evidence of intent and participation. The appellant argued that he was not the primary actor but rather assisted others in committing the crimes. The court, however, found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant was a principal in the first degree, actively participating in the planning and execution of the offences. Regarding sentencing, the court considered the principle of totality, ensuring that the cumulative sentence for all offences did not excessively exceed the aggregate punishment for each offence considered in isolation. The judges also examined the severity of the crimes, the impact on the victim, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the appellant's claims of lesser involvement. The sentence was also affirmed, with the court emphasising the gravity of the offences and the necessity of an appropriate punitive response. The decision underscored the importance of detailed examination of each defendant's role in criminal activities and the application of sentencing principles to achieve just outcomes. The final orders of the court maintained the conviction and sentence as determined by the lower courts, with no further appeals permitted.

Orders