AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 6 March 2020

R v Askarou

[2020] NSWDC 68

Assault & violenceFirearms & weapons
CRIME SENTENCE SHOOT WITH INTENT TO MURDER

Citation: R v Askarou [2020] NSWDC 68
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 March 2020
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender was convicted by jury after a 22-day trial of shooting with intent to murder. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 10 years. The offender and victim had known each other since high school and had drifted apart from around 2012, apparently following a dispute over a suspected home robbery.

On 28 July 2016, as the victim returned to his home in Prairiewood, the offender approached him wearing a black face covering and fired three shots at close range. One bullet struck the victim in the torso, puncturing his lung and severing his spinal cord. The offender then fled in a nearby getaway car and later disposed of the firearm, which was never recovered.

The victim survived but suffered permanent and catastrophic injuries, including complete loss of function in his lower limbs, impaired bowel and sexual function, and a lifelong requirement to use a wheelchair and undergo ongoing medical review.

  • What were the objective facts of the offence, and where did the offence sit on the range of objective seriousness?
  • What aggravating and mitigating factors applied to the sentencing exercise?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify a variation from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence.
  • What sentence, including head sentence and non-parole period, was appropriate in the circumstances?

Decision

His Honour found that the offence fell comfortably above the mid-range of objective seriousness and within the high range. The shooting was not spontaneous. The offender had obtained a firearm, laid in wait for the victim, disguised himself, and arranged or used a getaway vehicle. The court characterised the act as an attempted execution. The offender was also subject to conditional liberty at the time, having been released on bail for drug supply and possession offences, which further aggravated his conduct.

The permanent consequences for the victim were a significant aggravating factor. Medical evidence confirmed the spinal cord injury had resulted in lifelong disability, including wheelchair dependence, ongoing medical risk, and loss of autonomic function. His Honour treated these consequences as catastrophic and noted they inevitably affected the victim's family as well.

On mitigation, the offender had prior good character references from family and friends, and had no prior custodial history. However, the court found it difficult to reconcile the character described by referees with the conduct established by the jury's verdict. The offender maintained his innocence and showed no contrition or remorse, making rehabilitation prospects difficult to assess. His Honour described those prospects as guarded, noting the cold-blooded nature of the offence and the offender's history of drug offences.

Special circumstances were found to justify a departure from the ordinary ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence. The offender's relatively young age and the fact that this was his first period of custody together supported a longer tail on supervision. His Honour also sought to avoid a crushing sentence while still giving considerable weight to both personal and general deterrence.

Orders Made

  • Head sentence of 15 years and 6 months imprisonment, commencing 12 January 2018 and expiring 11 July 2033.
  • Non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months, expiring 11 July 2028.
  • Special circumstances found, varying the standard ratio between non-parole period and head sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court placed the offence in the high range of objective seriousness, citing premeditation, disguise, an organised means of escape, disposal of the weapon, and the catastrophic permanent injuries to the victim.
  • A shoot with intent to murder conviction carries a maximum of 25 years and a standard non-parole period of 10 years; both figures operate as legislative guideposts in the sentencing exercise.
  • Where an offender maintains their innocence and expresses no remorse, the sentencing court faces difficulty assessing rehabilitation prospects and must weigh that uncertainty alongside other purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Special circumstances warranting a variation from the standard non-parole period ratio were established by the offender's youth and first-time custody, consistent with the principle that an extended supervision period may benefit a first-time prisoner.
  • Victim impact evidence, even where not tested by cross-examination, was treated cautiously but confirmed medical evidence of harm that was independently established and undisputed.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including s 3A (purposes of sentencing)

Cases
- R v Gonzales [2004] NSWSC 822