Regina v Zreika - [2000] NSWCCA 75

CITATION: Regina v Zreika [2000] NSWCCA 75 revised - 17/03/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60380/99

HEARING DATE(S): 23/02/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Abdul Hakim Zreika

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1,35; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/0301; 97/21/0329

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Grogan DCJ

COUNSEL : P Byrne SC (Appellant)
D M L Woodburne (Crown/Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Ross Hill & Associates (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown/Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - perverting the course of justice and similar offences - young offender.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900.

CASES CITED:
Regina v Karageorge (1998) ACrimR 157; Regina v Pangello (1991) ACrimR 441; Regina v WHS (Unreported) NSWCCA 27 March 1995.

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA60380/99

HIDDEN J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday, 23 February 2000

REGINA v Abdul Hakim ZREIKA
JUDGMENT

1 HIDDEN J: I will ask Acting Justice Carruthers to give the first judgment. 2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Abdul Hakim Zreika, the applicant, was arraigned before Judge Grogan and a jury of twelve at the District Court Parramatta on 9 February 1999. He pleaded not guilty to the four charges in the indictment which, briefly stated, were: 3 Count 1 charged that on or about 7 February 1996 at Lidcombe the applicant, knowing that a person, whose name remains unknown, committed the offence of robbery at Clancy’s Supermarket, failed, without reasonable excuse, to bring information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of that unnamed person to the attention of a member of the Police Force. This count is under s316 of the Crimes Act 1900, as amended, and is generally known as “concealing a serious offence”. That offence imposes a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years. 4 Count 2 charged that the applicant on 23 December 1996 at Lidcombe, did act, namely to request Monica Gruszka to conceal information from the police in relation to the aforesaid robbery, with intent thereby to pervert the course of justice. This is a count under s319 of the Act which is generally known as “perverting the course of justice” and carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years penal servitude. 5 Count 3 charged that between 25 May 1997 and 29 May 1997 at Lidcombe the applicant did threaten to cause a detriment, namely difficulties generally, including in regard to her education, to Elizabeth Passarelli, with intent to influence her, a person called in a judicial proceeding, namely proceedings against Abdul Hakim Zreika, for the offence of robbery in the Lidcombe Children’s Court, and for public justice offences in the Burwood Local Court, to not attend as a witness. This is a count under s322(a) of the Act, which is generally known as “threatening a witness”, and imposes a maximum penalty of ten years penal servitude. 6 Count 4 charged that on 4 June 1997 at Lidcombe, the applicant threatened to do injury to a police officer,…

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 Zreika 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: [2000] NSWCCA 75
Decision Date: 23 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Zreika, the defendant was convicted of perverting the course of justice and faced sentencing. The court had to determine an appropriate penalty considering the defendant's age and the circumstances of the offence. The defendant, a young adult, was involved in an incident that led to the obstruction of justice. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the gravity of the offence, the role of the defendant as a young offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these considerations to arrive at a just sentence. The primary focus was on how best to address the offence while considering the defendant's age and potential for reform.

The court found that while the offence was serious, the defendant's age and the mitigating factors presented warranted a sentence that balanced punishment and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence but also recognised the need to provide the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary but sought to minimise its impact by considering the defendant's youth and prospects for reform. The final orders reflected this balanced approach, imposing a term of imprisonment with provisions for the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders