AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 28 February 2025

R v Youseff (No 4)

[2025] NSWSC 125

HomicideDrugsFirearms & weapons
CRIME SENTENCE MURDER WHERE BUGMY FACTORS WHERE REDUCED MORAL CULPABILITY WHERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Citation: R v Youseff (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 125
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 February 2025
Judge(s): McNaughton J

Background

In the early hours of 30 November 2020, Adnan Salameh was shot twice and killed in a granny flat in Tregear, Sydney. Two fully disguised men entered the premises, one carrying a shotgun. Mr Salameh, aged 30, died from his wounds shortly afterwards.

The offender, Bahra Youseff, had supplied cocaine on credit to a woman with whom Mr Salameh was in a relationship. When the debt went unpaid, Mr Youseff made repeated threats and attended the address on prior occasions. The Crown's case was that the shooting arose from this drug debt dispute. Mr Youseff was arrested in August 2022, nearly two years after the killing, and pleaded not guilty at trial.

A jury found Mr Youseff guilty of murder on 1 October 2024, following a trial in the Supreme Court. The sentence hearing proceeded over two part-days in November 2024 and February 2025, with McNaughton J then tasked with determining the appropriate sentence.

  • What sentence was appropriate for murder under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), having regard to the standard non-parole period of 20 years under s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)?
  • What findings of fact could be made consistently with the jury's verdict, applying the standard from The Queen v Olbrich?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's background, including deprived childhood and other personal circumstances, in light of Bugmy v The Queen?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the statutory ratio between non-parole period and head sentence?
  • What was the appropriate commencement date for the sentence, given the offender had notionally served part of a separate sentence while on remand for this matter?

Decision

McNaughton J declined to impose a life sentence, noting the Crown did not submit one was warranted and that the circumstances did not meet the threshold requiring the community's interests in retribution, punishment, protection, and deterrence to be served only by such a sentence. The judge confirmed that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and the standard non-parole period of 20 years were both important statutory guideposts to be weighed alongside all relevant factors.

The court found that the murder was premeditated and carried out using a shotgun by two disguised men who entered the victim's home. The offender's intent was found to be to cause grievous bodily harm rather than death, and the offending created a grave risk of death to another person present. These features elevated the objective seriousness of the offence. The court also took into account the impact on the victim's family, as conveyed in the victim impact statement read to the court.

McNaughton J accepted that the offender's background, including a deprived and difficult upbringing, warranted application of the Bugmy principles, which recognise that an offender's childhood disadvantage can reduce moral culpability even for very serious offences. A psychologist's report and affidavits from family members supported this finding. The court found these matters reduced, to some degree, the weight to be given to personal deterrence and denunciation.

Special circumstances were found to exist, justifying a longer-than-usual additional term (the portion of the sentence served on parole). The court considered this appropriate to facilitate the offender's rehabilitation and reintegration. On the question of commencement, McNaughton J declined to fully backdate the sentence to the date of first custody, instead commencing it two months later to reflect some additional punishment for a separate earlier offence for which a notional sentence had been served concurrently.

Orders Made

  • Mr Youseff was sentenced to imprisonment for 23 years and 6 months for the murder of Adnan Salameh.
  • A non-parole period of 16 years was set, commencing 31 October 2022 and expiring 30 October 2038.
  • An additional term of 7 years and 6 months was imposed, commencing 31 October 2038 and ending 30 April 2046.
  • The court directed that Mr Youseff's legal advisers inform him of the potential consequences at sentence expiry under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), given that murder is a "serious violence offence" under that Act.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court confirmed that both the statutory maximum (life imprisonment) and the standard non-parole period (20 years) for murder operate as guideposts to be weighed alongside all sentencing factors, consistent with Muldrock v The Queen and Markarian v The Queen.
  • Where a murder involves a premeditated armed home invasion but the intent was to cause grievous bodily harm rather than death, these circumstances bear directly on the assessment of objective seriousness and must be reflected in the sentence without reaching the threshold for life imprisonment.
  • The Bugmy principles remain applicable in murder sentencing: evidence of a deprived and disadvantaged upbringing can reduce an offender's moral culpability, even where the offending is very serious.
  • Special circumstances justified a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio, producing a longer additional term to support rehabilitation and reintegration.
  • A sentencing court dealing with an offender who has notionally served a separate sentence while on remand for the primary offence retains a discretion to adjust the commencement date to reflect some additional punishment for that earlier matter, rather than fully backdating to first entry into custody.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 5A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 30E, 44, 54A, 61

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Carreno v R [2023] NSWCCA 20
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- R v Burns (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 140
- R v Carbone [2022] NSWSC 373
- R v Chamma; R v Hicks (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1057
- R v Dion [2021] NSWSC 1043
- R v Hickson (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 340
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
- R v Titan Gilkes [2025] NSWSC 23
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54