Citation: Regina v Omar Rustom [2005] NSWSC 61
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 February 2005
Judge(s): Dunford J
Background
Following guilty verdicts against his brother and another man for murder, a 22-year-old man (the contemnor) directed abusive and threatening remarks at a juror from the back of the courtroom. He addressed the juror by her first name, using language calculated to intimidate and upset her. Dunford J charged him with contempt in the face of the court immediately after the outburst.
The juror, who had already resisted improper approaches from others connected to the trial, suffered significant consequences from the incident. She moved address, changed jobs, and required counselling.
The matter came before the court for sentencing on the contempt charge. The contemnor gave evidence acknowledging his conduct and apologised for the outburst.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for contempt of court committed by making threatening and abusive remarks directly to a juror in the courtroom immediately after verdict?
- What weight should be given to the contemnor's personal circumstances, including a prior criminal record and evidence of rehabilitation since 2003?
Decision
Dunford J acknowledged that the contemnor's emotional reaction to his brother's conviction was understandable, but emphasised that juries must be protected from intimidation and abuse so they can perform their function. The anonymity, safety, and freedom from threat of jurors, as well as the integrity of jury trials generally, were identified as serious considerations.
In applying the sentencing purposes set out in section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Dunford J focused on denunciation, accountability, and general and specific deterrence as the relevant considerations in this case.
The court accepted evidence that the contemnor and the juror had not known each other before the trial, and that someone else had supplied him with her name. While this did not diminish the seriousness of the offence, it was relevant to the overall picture of his conduct.
On the question of personal circumstances, Dunford J gave significant weight to the contemnor's apparent rehabilitation since 2003. His prior record included drug, assault, intimidating police, and driving offences, but he had ceased offending, stopped using illegal drugs, was operating a business, and was engaged to be married. The Pre-Sentence Report from Probation and Parole confirmed this turnaround. In all the circumstances, the court considered that a Community Service Order was a sufficient response.
Orders Made
- The contemnor convicted of contempt of court
- Ordered to perform 250 hours of community service
- Ordered to report to Liverpool Probation and Parole Service within seven days
- Ordered to attend the Supreme Court Criminal Registry at 2pm on the day of sentence to receive a notice setting out the details of the order
- The court noted that failure to complete the 250 hours would expose the contemnor to full-time imprisonment
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that protecting jurors from intimidation and abuse is a serious matter, underpinning both the safety of individual jurors and the integrity of the jury system as a whole.
- A conviction for contempt in the face of the court does not require the contemnor to have a prior personal connection to the juror targeted, provided the conduct was calculated to intimidate or upset.
- Sentencing for contempt in this context engages the purposes under section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, with denunciation, accountability, and deterrence identified as particularly relevant.
- Demonstrated rehabilitation since prior offending, supported by a favourable Pre-Sentence Report, can weigh significantly in mitigation and may support a non-custodial outcome even where the contempt is characterised as serious.
- Harm to the juror extended well beyond the courtroom incident itself: the court took into account that she had moved address, changed employment, and required counselling as a result of the combined effect of the improper approaches during the trial and the contemnor's outburst after verdict.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A
Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.