R v Younes - [2023] NZHC 744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2021-004-007141

[2023] NZHC 744

THE KING

v

SANDY YOUNES

Hearing: 4 April 2023

Appearances:

R M A McCoubrey for the Crown

T M Cooper KC & O F Kazmierow for Ms Younes

Sentencing Notes:

4 April 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF TAHANA J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitors, Meredith Connell, Auckland Verus Chambers, Auckland

R v YOUNES (Sentencing Notes) [2023] NZHC 744 [4 April 2023]

Introduction

[1] Ms Younes, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to one charge of being an accessory after the fact to the discharge of a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.1 The charge carries a maximum sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment.

[2] First, I acknowledge the deceased Mr Rakeem, and his whānau (family). Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un. To Allah we belong and to Allah we return. To the family who have joined us here in Court today and for those whānau who reside overseas, Asaalamu alaikum, peace be upon you and may your suffering ease, Inshallah.

[3] Before sentencing, I will outline the summary of facts and my assessment of the facts relevant to your offending based on the evidence I heard at the trial. I will acknowledge the statement from the deceased’s (Mr Rakeem’s) mother. I will then outline the approach I will take in determining your sentence. I will explain the starting point I have adopted and why, and any adjustment I have made to this starting point to reflect your personal circumstances.

Offending

[4] On the evening of 1 October 2021 and into the early hours of the next day, you were at the home you shared with your partner at the time, Mr Mandel Sellick. You had invited people over to socialise, including friends and family. This included the deceased, Mr Rakeem who was your brother’s friend.

[5] For most of the evening Mr Sellick was in the bedroom upstairs from the lounge where people were socialising.

[6] During the evening, Mr Rakeem and another left the house to buy drugs. The drugs were understood to be a mixture of MDMA and cocaine. When they returned, some of the group, including you, snorted some of the drugs.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 71, 198(2) and 312. Maximum penalty of three years and six months’ imprisonment.

[7] You complained that the drugs hurt your nose. You went upstairs to your bedroom and told Mr Sellick this and he thought that you had been drugged.

[8] Mr Sellick said during the trial he got the loaded pistol he kept in the bedside table and tucked it in his trousers with his t-shirt over it. You then went downstairs with the pistol concealed.

[9] Mr Sellick confronted the group, demanding to know who had given you drugs. He did not believe that it was MDMA and cocaine. He thought it was “crack” or methamphetamine. I accept that Mr Sellick…

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 Younes

Details

AGLC: R v Younes [2023] NZHC 744
Case: [2023] NZHC 744
Decision Date: 4 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand sentenced Ms. Sandy Younes, who had pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the reckless discharge of a firearm that resulted in the death of Mr. Rakeem. The court acknowledged the deceased's family and the serious nature of the offence. Ms. Younes was present at the scene of the crime, assisted in cleaning up the area, and threatened other witnesses to prevent them from speaking to the police. The maximum penalty for the offence was three years and six months’ imprisonment.

The court determined that the seriousness of the crime and the level of assistance provided warranted a starting point of 10 months' imprisonment, considering comparable cases. Various factors, including Ms. Younes' guilty plea, remorse, personal circumstances, and youth, resulted in a total discount of 50% from the starting point. Consequently, the court sentenced Ms. Younes to two and a half months of community detention and twelve months' intensive supervision, allowing her to maintain employment and continue raising her son.

Final orders: Ms. Sandy Younes is sentenced to two and a half months of community detention and twelve months' intensive supervision, with conditions specified in the PAC report, including a curfew from 10 pm to 6 am daily.

Orders