Legal Research
Cases
R v Youkhana

R v Youkhana

Case [2024] NZHC 3248 4 November 2024

Rehabilitative Prospects

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-002285

[2024] NZHC 3248

THE KING

v

RAMI LAZAR YOUKHANA

Hearing: 4 November 2024

Counsel:

M K Story for Crown

K F Preston for Defendant

Sentencing:

4 November 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF RADICH J

[1] Rami Lazar Youkhana, you appear today to be sentenced on the eight charges of receiving to which you have pleaded guilty.1

[2] In sentencing you today, I will address, first, the broad receiving operation of which your conduct forms a part, as well as your involvement in that operation. I will then discuss the starting point that I am taking for your offending, including the adjustments I need to make to that starting point to take account of the fact that you are already serving a sentence for receiving and burglary charges committed in 2023.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 246. Six of the charges (one of which is representative) are for receiving property valued at over $1,000 and carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment; one is for receiving property valued between $500 and $1,000) and carry a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment; and one is for receiving property valued at less than $500 and carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

R v YOUKHANA [2024] NZHC 3248 [4 November 2024]

Finally, I will describe the adjustments I make to account of factors that are personal to you.

The receiving operation as a whole

[3] Your offending arises from a police operation, carried out across 2022, to target a large-scale receiving operation. The primary instigator, and operator, of the enterprise was your co-offender Mr Soon. Mr Soon would be contacted by people offering stolen goods for sale; people who had stolen the goods or who had, themselves, received them. Equally, Mr Soon would provide to people lists of goods he wished to have, on the basis that they would be stolen or shoplifted to order. Mr Soon had connections throughout Wellington and received stolen goods from several groups in the district.

[4] You were one of the two most significant providers of property to Mr Soon. You were in regular communication with him over the course of 2022 and your conversations with him related almost exclusively to the sale and purchase of stolen property. Telecommunication records show that, when funds from Mr Soon were slow to arrive, you would chase him for money, referring to the need to pay other people for the goods in question. You were also “by far” the most regular communicator with Mr Soon, as shown through calls and text messages. There were 1,668 communications between you and Mr Soon between 19 February 2022 and 19 October 2022. You communicated with Mr Soon by text on average 50 times a week. Mr Soon visited your address regularly, where he would collect stolen property.

[5] You sold items to Mr Soon that had a retail value in excess of $100,000.…

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 R v Youkhana

Details

AGLC: R v Youkhana [2024] NZHC 3248
Case: [2024] NZHC 3248
Decision Date: 4 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Youkhana, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved Rami Lazar Youkhana being sentenced on eight charges of receiving, to which he had pleaded guilty. The charges stemmed from Youkhana's involvement in a large-scale receiving operation in Wellington, where he played a significant role in providing stolen property to the primary instigator, Mr Soon. The operation, which ran from January to October 2022, involved the receipt of stolen goods valued at over $100,000, with property worth over $2.9 million recovered overall. The court considered the nature of Youkhana's involvement, his communications with Mr Soon, and the harm caused to victims. Given the seriousness of the offending and the absence of a tariff case for receiving offences, the court looked to previous cases to set a starting point, ultimately deciding on four years and three months' imprisonment. Considering that Youkhana was already serving a two-year sentence for receiving and burglary charges from 2023, the court applied a 12-month uplift to the starting point, resulting in a cumulative sentence of five years and three months. After applying various credits for factors such as a guilty plea, addiction, and time spent on restrictive bail, the court arrived at a final sentence of 18 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the existing sentence, effectively amounting to a total of three and a half years' imprisonment.

The court emphasised the need to consider the totality of the sentence to avoid disproportionality. It opted for a method that first assessed the combined starting points before adjusting for totality, to avoid the risk of considering factors irrelevant to the gravity of the offending. Ultimately, the court sentenced Youkhana to 18 months' imprisonment for the six charges of receiving property exceeding $1,000, three months for receiving property between $500 and $1,000, and three months for receiving property not exceeding $500, with all sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with the existing two-year sentence.

Orders