Regina v Abdulkader and Hohaia [2006] NSWSC 866
Hohaia was the principal aggressor in a sustained, brutal and senseless attack on a blameless victim and his murder fell within the mid range of objective seriousness, although his youth justified moderation from the standard non-parole period. Abdulkader physically struck the deceased and aided and encouraged the attack, but played a lesser role, so his murder fell below the mid range. Intoxication by alcohol and cannabis explained but did not excuse the offending. Neither offender was proved to have intended to kill, but both intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Concurrent sentences were appropriate for robbery in company, and Hohaia's sentence for the earlier assault was also made...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 September 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentencing / Judgment on Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty for Murder and Robbery in Company, and After Hohaia's Plea of Guilty to Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
- Outcome
- Both offenders were sentenced to imprisonment. Hohaia's total sentence expires on 3 December 2027 and he is eligible for release on parole on 3 December 2021. Abdulkader's total sentence expires on 9 December 2025 and he is eligible for release on parole on 9 September 2020.
- Legal Topics
- ['murder' 'robbery in Company' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'acting in Concert' 'aiding and Abetting' 'intoxication by Drugs and Alcohol' 'totality' 'special Circumstances']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Judgment on Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty for Murder and Robbery in Company, and After Hohaia's Plea of Guilty to Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What facts relevant to sentence were consistent with the jury verdicts and proved to the required standard.' 'What role each offender played in the murder, including whether Abdulkader acted in concert by striking the deceased or aided and encouraged Hohaia.' 'Whether each murder offence fell within the middle range of objective seriousness for the standard non-parole period regime.' 'What allowance should be made for youth, intoxication, criminal history, rehabilitation prospects, contrition, parity and totality.' "When Abdulkader's sentence should commence while he was already serving another sentence."]
Ratio Decidendi
Hohaia was the principal aggressor in a sustained, brutal and senseless attack on a blameless victim and his murder fell within the mid range of objective seriousness, although his youth justified moderation from the standard non-parole period. Abdulkader physically struck the deceased and aided and encouraged the attack, but played a lesser role, so his murder fell below the mid range. Intoxication by alcohol and cannabis explained but did not excuse the offending. Neither offender was proved to have intended to kill, but both intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Concurrent sentences were appropriate for robbery in company, and Hohaia's sentence for the earlier assault was also made...
Court Disposition
Both offenders were sentenced to imprisonment. Hohaia's total sentence expires on 3 December 2027 and he is eligible for release on parole on 3 December 2021. Abdulkader's total sentence expires on 9 December 2025 and he is eligible for release on parole on 9 September 2020.
Orders
- ['John Hohaia, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Lakhbir Singh on 15 September 2003, sentenced to a fixed term of 9 months imprisonment commencing on 4 December 2003 and expiring on 3 September 2004, concurrent with the other terms.' 'John Hohaia, for murder, sentenced to 24 years imprisonment...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment