R v Mohamad Charrouf [2007] NSWDC 292

R v Mohamad Charrouf [2007] NSWDC 292

The offending was assessed as towards the lower categories of seriousness because the intimidation was by menace without weapon, physical act or specific threat, its objective was unclear due to interruption, there was no evidence that fear of physical or mental harm was actually engendered, and the persons present were not shown to have been alarmed. Taking account of the offender's substantial antecedents, intellectual deficits, limited weight for general deterrence, need for personal deterrence, totality with his existing sentence, and special circumstances, a further six month non-parole period with an eighteen month balance of term was imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Jury Acquittal on First Count and Conviction on Second Count
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to a six month non-parole period with an eighteen month balance of term.
Legal Topics
['enter Dwelling House With Intent to Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'intimidation' 'objective Criminality' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'parole Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['enter Dwelling House With Intent to Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'intimidation' 'objective Criminality' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'parole Conditions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Jury Acquittal on First Count and Conviction on Second Count

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely intimidation with intention to cause fear of physical or mental harm.' 'How to assess the objective criminality of the intimidation.' 'Whether subjective factors, including low intellectual functioning, drug abuse history and antecedents, affected deterrence and sentence.' 'How totality should be applied given the offender was already serving a substantial sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offending was assessed as towards the lower categories of seriousness because the intimidation was by menace without weapon, physical act or specific threat, its objective was unclear due to interruption, there was no evidence that fear of physical or mental harm was actually engendered, and the persons present were not shown to have been alarmed. Taking account of the offender's substantial antecedents, intellectual deficits, limited weight for general deterrence, need for personal deterrence, totality with his existing sentence, and special circumstances, a further six month non-parole period with an eighteen month balance of term was imposed.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to a six month non-parole period with an eighteen month balance of term.

Orders

  • ['Non-parole period of 6 months to date from 12 December 2010 and expire on 11 June 2011.' 'Balance of term of 18 months to expire on 11 December 2012.' "Offender's release ordered on 11 June 2011." 'Pursuant to s 51 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, parole condition imposed that the offender accept...