R v Steven HIRMIZ [2024] NSWDC 532

R v Steven HIRMIZ [2024] NSWDC 532

The offender was sentenced for a serious firing offence within the midrange of objective seriousness, committed after significant planning, in a residential area with high risk to safety. Aggravation by commission in company was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Despite substantiated mental health and substance abuse issues, these did not materially reduce moral culpability or the need for general deterrence. Special circumstances were found, warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period for imprisonment. For the possession of the replica pistol, a non-custodial sentence equivalent to a co-offender was appropriate, reflecting parity and the low objective seriousness.

Parties
Crown: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions; Offender: Steven Hirmiz
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Offender convicted on both counts and sentenced as follows: For the shooting offence, 7 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. For the replica pistol offence, a 2-year community correction order. Special circumstances found for the shooting offence.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Firing at Dwelling Houses, Possession of Prohibited Firearm, Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S 93 Ga(1 B)
Criminal Law Sentencing Firing at Dwelling Houses Possession of Prohibited Firearm Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S 93 Ga(1 B)

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NSW Director of Public Prosecutions

Crown

Steven Hirmiz

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for the offence of firing at a dwelling house with reckless disregard for safety, in the course of organised criminal activity?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm (replica pistol)?
  3. 3 Is the objective seriousness of the offences aggravated by commission in company?

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was sentenced for a serious firing offence within the midrange of objective seriousness, committed after significant planning, in a residential area with high risk to safety. Aggravation by commission in company was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Despite substantiated mental health and substance abuse issues, these did not materially reduce moral culpability or the need for general deterrence. Special circumstances were found, warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period for imprisonment. For the possession of the replica pistol, a non-custodial sentence equivalent to a co-offender was appropriate, reflecting parity and the low objective seriousness.

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on both counts and sentenced as follows: For the shooting offence, 7 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. For the replica pistol offence, a 2-year community correction order. Special circumstances found for the shooting offence.

Orders

  • In relation to sequence 1, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months, commencing on 4 August 2022 and expiring on 3 February 2030, with a non-parole period of 5 years, expiring on 3 August 2027.
  • In relation to sequence 3, the offender is sentenced to a community correction order for a period of 2 years, commencing on 20 September 2024 and expiring on 19 September 2026.