AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 22 May 2018

R v Katherine Abdallah (No 6)

[2018] NSWSC 729

Homicide
SENTENCE MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT OF GUILTY AFTER TRIAL UNLAWFUL AND DANGEROUS ACT SINGLE STAB CAUSING DEATH OFFENCE CAPTURED ON CCTV

Citation: R v Katherine Abdallah (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 729
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 May 2018
Judge: Lonergan J

Background

The offender was convicted by jury of the manslaughter of her younger cousin, a 21-year-old woman who had been staying at the offender's townhouse in Brighton-le-Sands. The death occurred on 9 February 2013, following a series of disputes over the preceding day, including the deceased having taken the offender's luxury vehicle without permission, damaging it, and later taking both the vehicle and the offender's mobile phone.

The fatal incident took place just before 6pm and was almost entirely captured on CCTV footage from cameras inside the townhouse. After approximately four minutes of mutual physical fighting, the offender ran to the kitchen and took two large knives from a wooden block. She directed the knives toward the deceased on two occasions before stabbing her once in the right upper chest with a third thrust. The stab wound penetrated the right lung to a depth of seven to ten centimetres and caused the deceased's death.

The charge was manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act under s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The sole issue at trial was self-defence, which the jury rejected.

  • What sentence was appropriate for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, following a jury's rejection of self-defence?
  • What standard of proof applied to factual findings at the sentencing hearing, including disputed matters adverse to and in favour of the offender?
  • Whether the offender demonstrated genuine remorse, and what weight remorse should carry in sentencing.
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term.

Decision

Lonergan J sentenced the offender to a total term of nine years' imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of six years and nine months and a balance of term of two years and three months. The sentence was backdated to account for the 972 days the offender had already spent in custody across two separate periods.

Her Honour applied the standard sentencing principles drawn from Markarian v R, approaching the exercise by weighing all relevant factors rather than mechanically adjusting a starting point. The maximum penalty for manslaughter under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 is 25 years. Her Honour noted that manslaughter encompasses a wide spectrum of culpability, and that the appropriate sentence had to reflect the particular circumstances of this offending.

On the question of remorse, Her Honour found that the offender had not demonstrated genuine remorse. Her Honour acknowledged the difficulty in assessing remorse where self-defence had been raised at trial, but found on the evidence that any expression of remorse was not credible in the circumstances. The absence of remorse was treated as a factor in sentencing, rather than simply a neutral one.

Her Honour found no basis to adjust the non-parole period under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to reflect special circumstances. Although supervision and support upon release would be beneficial, that consideration alone did not warrant a departure from the standard proportions.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of the manslaughter of Suzie Sarkis.
  • Sentenced to a total term of nine years' imprisonment.
  • Non-parole period of six years and nine months; balance of term of two years and three months.
  • Sentence amended by addendum dated 25 May 2018 to commence on 23 September 2015 (reflecting 972 days already served in custody and 955 days at liberty between first custody date and sentencing).
  • Eligible for release on parole on 22 June 2022; sentence to expire 22 September 2024.

Key Takeaways

  • A jury's rejection of self-defence required the sentencing court to proceed on the basis that the offender had no lawful excuse for the stabbing, even where some circumstances surrounding the altercation remained ambiguous or disputed.
  • Under the evidentiary principles confirmed in R v Olbrich and Weininger v R, facts adverse to an offender at sentencing must be established beyond reasonable doubt, while facts favourable to the offender need only be proved on the balance of probabilities.
  • Assessing remorse where self-defence was run at trial requires particular care; Lonergan J found that the offender's expressions of remorse were not genuine, which weighed against her in the sentencing exercise.
  • Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act carries a maximum of 25 years under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900, and the wide sentencing range for the offence reflects the broad spectrum of conduct it captures.
  • Where an offender would benefit from post-release supervision, that consideration alone does not automatically establish special circumstances sufficient to vary the statutory ratio between non-parole period and balance of term.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(b), s 24
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 10, 21A, 44, 47

Cases
- Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
- Weininger v R (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14
- R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
- R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37
- R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 79