Citation: Regina v Simon TAOUK [2004] NSWSC 981 revised – 22/10/2004
Court: NSW Supreme Court, Common Law Division
Date: 22 October 2004
Judge(s): Barr J
Background
The offender was convicted by a jury of the murders of his wife, Salam Taouk, and his brother-in-law, Tony Taouk, at the family home in Strathfield in the early hours of 29 September 2002. The offender had become angry upon his wife and daughters returning home late that evening, and after the household had retired for the night, six shots were fired from a revolver on the upstairs landing. Two shots found their marks: one struck Salam Taouk in the back and another struck Tony Taouk in the chest. Both died from their wounds.
The offender left the house shortly after the shootings and arrived at Burwood Police Station at approximately 3:15am. He initially told the attending officer that he had "just shot someone," though he later retracted this and claimed that Tony Taouk had been the shooter and that he had merely tried to intervene. The jury rejected this account.
The offender was a Lebanese-born man in his mid-fifties with no prior criminal history. He had significant health problems, including two hospitalisations for hypertensive encephalopathy and aspiration pneumonia, the most recent of which occurred only six months before sentencing.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for each murder, having regard to the objective gravity of the offences and the offender's personal circumstances?
- How should the sentences be structured (concurrently, cumulatively, or partially accumulated) to reflect the totality of the offending?
- What weight, if any, should be given to the offender's age, ill health, lack of criminal history, remorse (or absence thereof), and family support?
- What non-parole periods were appropriate, and how should pre-sentence custody be accounted for?
Decision
Barr J characterised both killings as murder of high objective gravity. The offender had planned the shootings to at least some degree, having disposed of the gun before presenting himself at the police station. The judge found that the offender's account attributing the shooting to Tony Taouk was false, and that he had left the house specifically to dispose of the weapon, knowing police would soon arrive.
The court found no genuine remorse. The offender had maintained a false account throughout, and the judge was not persuaded that expressions of remorse in pre-sentence materials were authentic. The offender did, however, receive some credit for his lack of prior offending, his age (55 at the time of sentencing), his serious and ongoing health conditions, and the strong support of his surviving children.
On the health evidence, Barr J accepted that the offender faced a real risk of further hypertensive episodes and would serve his sentence harder than an otherwise healthy prisoner. This was taken into account, as was the need for a structured parole period to assist with medical management following release.
The sentences were partially accumulated rather than fully concurrent, to reflect the separate victims and the distinct acts of violence while also acknowledging the principle of totality in sentencing.
Orders Made
- For the murder of Salam Taouk: imprisonment for 16 years, commencing 8 February 2004 and expiring 7 February 2020, with a non-parole period of 15 years expiring 7 February 2019.
- For the murder of Tony Taouk: imprisonment for 18 years, commencing 8 February 2008 and expiring 7 February 2026, with a non-parole period of 11 years expiring 7 February 2019.
- Both non-parole periods were structured to expire on the same date, making 7 February 2019 the earliest date of eligibility for parole.
Key Takeaways
- Where an offender kills two victims in a single incident, partial accumulation of sentences (rather than full concurrence or full accumulation) may reflect both the separate harm caused to each victim and the principle that the total sentence must not be disproportionate to the overall criminality.
- The Supreme Court gave weight to serious ill health as a factor making imprisonment harder to bear, even where that health condition was substantially within the offender's own capacity to manage through lifestyle changes.
- A finding of no genuine remorse was supported by the offender's maintenance of a false exculpatory account throughout the proceedings, notwithstanding any post-conviction expressions of regret.
- Disposal of the murder weapon before attending a police station was treated as evidence of planning and consciousness of guilt, undermining the offender's claim that the shooting was accidental or that another person was responsible.
- The court aligned both non-parole periods to expire on the same date, producing an extended parole period on the second sentence, in order to accommodate the offender's medical needs and the totality of the sentences.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
The judgment as provided does not cite specific legislation or cases by name. No statutory provisions or authorities were identified in the text supplied.