This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2487
October 27, 2006
MIM: In his comments regarding women being at fault for rape - Scheik Al Hilaly also condemned the sentencing of four Muslim men who perpetrated brutal gang rapes upon four non Muslim Australian girls.The rapes were motivated out of the Islamist idea that non Muslim women who were not dressed according to Muslim standards of modesty were infidel whores who were there for the taking by Muslim men.
The ring leader Bilal Skaf, was sentenced to 55 years. Al Hilaly referred to him directly in his sermon, complaining that the Australian courts would give out long sentences like 65 years for men who had fallen victim to immodest women who deserved to be raped.
Excerpts from a recording of the 17-minute sermon appeared in The Australian newspaper yesterday.
He said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and inappropriate clothes, "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years," The Australian reported.
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," the sheik asked.
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (Muslim headscarf), no problem would have occurred." http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20653668-952,00.html
MIM: Bilal Skaf smiled when he was sentenced to 55 years for the rapes which were justified by Al Hilaly.
Monday September 23, 2002It's hard to extend any sympathy to people like Bilal Skaf. He is currently serving a 55-year jail term for his part in a string of gang-rapes in Sydney's southern suburbs two years ago.
During the rapes teenage girls were threatened at gunpoint, beaten, insulted, forced to perform oral sex and raped by up to 14 boys at a time. In a particularly inflammatory twist, several of the victims were subjected to a barrage of racist taunts by their assailants, all of whom were from Lebanese backgrounds.
Skaf has never shown any remorse for the crimes or pity for the victims, and smiled as he received the guilty verdicts. Members of his family have fallen back on the old saw that the women he attacked were willing partners in their assault.
"...The rightwing radio presenter, Alan Jones, revealingly describing the attacks by Australian-born teenagers as "Muslim rapes of Australian women", suggested that they were "the first signs of an Islamic hatred towards the community that welcomed them"..."
Sentencing of Bilal Skaf
On 15 August, 2002, Justice Michael Finnane sentenced Bilal Skaf to 55 years in gaol with 40 years non-parole. These are Justice Finnane's sentencing remarks.
Note: During the course of the legal proceedings, Bilal Skaf's identity was suppressed. He was given the pseudonym "X" and is referred to as such in the sentencing report.THE DISTRICT COURT
THURSDAY 15 AUGUST 2002
01/11/0750 - REGINA v X
01/11/1188 - REGINA v X
HIS HONOUR: The offender was the leader of a brutal gang of rapists who, on three occasions, raped four young women. His activity and those of his gang spread terror in Sydney in August 2000 just before the commencement of the Olympic Games. The gang consisted of varying numbers of men, up to about fourteen. Not all of them have been caught. Those who have been caught and brought to justice were either identified by the victims or pleaded guilty because evidence had been found to connect them with the offences.
The activities of the gang were organised by the use of mobile phones, and there was a considerable degree of planning and coordination involved in each set of attacks. As is common with rapists, the gang members treated each of their victims with callous indifference and considerable cruelty.
The courts must attempt to protect society from the possibility that those who have been caught will engage in this type of activity again.
The principles upon which I must act in sentencing this offender are laid down by Statute and in case law. The statutory provisions are now expressed in s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This section came into force only on 15 April 2002 and applies only to trials that commence after that date, hence it does not apply to the first trial involving the offender which commenced on 13 December 2001.
The provisions of s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 are as follows:
"Section 21A. General sentencing principles
(1)In determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender, a court must impose a sentence of a severity that is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
(2)For that purpose, the court must take into account such of the following matters as are relevant and known to the court:
(a) the nature and circumstances of the case,
(b) if the offence forms part of a course of conduct consisting of a series of criminal acts...that course of conduct,
(c) the personal circumstances of any victim of the offence, including:
(i) the age of the victim (particularly if the victim is very old or very young), and
(ii) any physical or mental disability of the victim, and
(iii) any vulnerability of the victim arising because of the nature of the victim's occupation,
(d) any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence,
(e) the degree to which the offender has shown contrition for the offence:
(i) by taking action to make reparation for any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence, or
(ii)in any other manner,
(f) the need to deter the offender or other persons from committing an offence of the same or a similar character,
(g) the need to protect the community from the offender,
(h)the need to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(i) the character, antecedents, cultural background, age, means and physical or mental condition of the offender,
(j) the prospect of rehabilitation of the offender.
(3) In addition, in determining whether a sentence under Division 2 or 3 of Part 2 is appropriate, the court must have regard to the nature and severity of the conditions that may be imposed on, or may apply to, the offender under that sentence.
(4) The matters to be taken into account by a court under this section are in addition to any other matters that are required or permitted to be taken into account by the court under this Act or any other law.
(5) This section does not apply to the determination of a sentence if proceedings (other than committal proceedings) for the offence were commenced in a court before the commencement of this section."
However, the principles laid down in this section have in practice been applied to the sentencing procedure for many years.
The first assault in point of time was at Northcote Park, Greenacre on 10 August 2000. Miss A and Miss B were together at the Mall in Chatswood. It was a Thursday night and both of them had been at the shopping centre, browsing around. Eight men, of whom the offender was one, and which included Y, Hajeid, H and another man to be known hereafter as S, approached them and persuaded them to accompany them in two cars. Miss B was quite keen to go but Miss A went only because she felt she should accompany her friend.
Both got into a white van which contained four of the men. The other four men got into a red car. Y, H and Hajeid were passengers in the red car. The white van had no seats in the back and it was to this area that Miss A and Miss B went. The offender introduced himself to them as Adam and claimed he was twenty-two years old. All of the men, being of Lebanese origin, spoke Arabic, and at various times during the night the men in each car communicated with each other using mobile phones. Neither of the victims understood Arabic.
Y, Hajeid and the offender came from the Greenacre area and it seems likely to me that all the others came from the same area.
It was to a park in this area that the men in the van and those in the car went to for the purposes of committing the offences of which they were convicted. H and S pleaded guilty before trial.
I cannot be sure precisely when the plan that these eight men should sexually assault their two victims was hatched, but the facts established beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion, that the plan had been agreed on before the van got to the park at Greenacre. I come to this conclusion because there was evidence in the trial, which was in no doubt, that there was almost constant communication between the men in the two vehicles from the time they left Chatswood and the time they arrived at Greenacre. This communication was by mobile phone calls. Some of it was in English, but much of it was in Arabic.
In my opinion, the almost constant telephone communication, together with the fact that the men in the red car, as I shall recount, arrived at the park at Greenacre just after the offender had told Miss A that she would be bashed if she did not have oral sex with him, enables me to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the crimes committed by the offender Y, Hajeid and their companions were carefully planned and well co-ordinated.
The two victims were in their last year at school and believed, perhaps foolishly, that the men, who were all young, would treat them well and give them some marijuana to smoke. In fact, both of them believed the van would be going somewhere nearby to Chatswood and that they would be dropped at their homes after they smoked marijuana.
In fact, the van and the red car went south over the Harbour Bridge then west on to Parramatta Road. The van stopped for a short while at a McDonald's store at Stanmore. Neither girl had expected they would be embarking on such a trip and both were surprised when they realised that the van was crossing the Harbour Bridge.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that neither of them entered the van for the purpose of having sex or believing that this was why they were being invited to go with these young men.
Neither of these young victims knew where Greenacre was and neither of them suspected they were being taken there. Indeed, as I have already said, each was surprised to find the van was going over the Harbour Bridge.
The van stopped at McDonald's at Stanmore and the men got out. Both young women could have left the van and Miss A did so, but Miss B stayed in the van notwithstanding Miss A trying to get her out. Neither of them was exactly clear on where they were.
On the trip to McDonald's the offender used a mobile phone to contact those in the red car and arranged with them to meet at McDonald's. During this part of the journey Miss B was with the offender and at one stage she kissed him a number of times. He asked her for oral sex on a number of occasions and she refused. A male sitting behind Miss A kept touching her around her breasts and tried to put his hands down her pants. She resisted all these assaults.
When she got out at McDonald's, Miss A attempted to persuade Miss B to leave the van but she would not do so. Miss A, I am satisfied, wanted to leave these men at this stage but did not want to abandon Miss B and so she stayed with the van and the men in it. These men then proposed to Miss A she should engage in oral sex with them but she refused to do so. A number of them became quite insistent and even angry, but she maintained her refusal.
The evidence satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender, who was the eldest man in the group, was the dominant figure at all times in the white van and the one who made and received most of the mobile phone calls.
At the park, he was the person claiming to be in charge and acted as the dominant figure at all times. I am satisfied that by this time the offender and those with him had decided to force oral sex on both women when they got to Greenacre. I am also satisfied that at no time did anyone in this group of men tell either of the complainants where they were going.
While the van was stopped at Stanmore there was mobile phone communication between the offender and the men in the red car, including Hajeid, Y and H, and I am satisfied that arrangements were made between them to meet. Much of this conversation was in Arabic, which neither victim could understand.
On the way to the park, the offender, who was in the back of the van, pressed Miss A to have sex with him. She refused, but he kept pressing the point. She continued to refuse. During this part of the journey another man was with Miss B and he pressed her to have oral sex with him. She refused to do so.
Eventually the van was driven to Northcote Park, Greenacre, and all on board got out. By this time it was well after 11pm. The man who had been with Miss B in the second part of this trip grabbed her by the neck and dragged her unwillingly to a spot behind a toilet block. He had her head in a headlock and she tried to get away from him. She was very scared. She saw the offender drag Miss A to another part of the park.
Meanwhile, the offender had Miss A by the hand. She went with him out of fear. He kept insisting she have oral sex with him and she kept refusing. She could see that Miss B was being dragged to another part of the park. I am satisfied that both girls were by this time in a state of emotional terror.
This state of terror in each was increased by what followed. In the case of Miss A, the offender demanded oral sex repeatedly and she repeatedly refused. They then had the following conversation:
The Offender: Just do it now before they come.
Miss A: No, I don't want to.
The Offender: If you don't do it they will probably bash you for not doing anything. It will be in your best interests if you do it now before they come. I will tell them you don't do anything and they will leave you alone.
Miss A: Why would they listen to you?
The Offender: Well I'm the oldest and they all respect me.
Miss A: Okay, but I still don't want to do anything.
The Offender: Just do it now and get it over and done with before they come.
At this time the red car in which Y, H and Hajeid were with another man, pulled up behind the white van and Miss A heard a number of male voices which were shouting and yelling. The offender then forced oral sex on her although she continued to say she did not want it. When he finished, she stood up and walked away from where he was. The four men from the red vehicle came running towards her, one of them crash tackled her to the ground. While she was on the ground some of the men started to kick her about her legs. When they stopped kicking her she was pulled to her feet and one of the four men from the red car picked her up on his shoulder and threw her into some bushes. She was screaming and crying at this stage. Y, H and Hajeid all participated in these assaults on her.
This assault was the subject of the fourth count on the indictment. These assaults were violent and calculated to cause fear and alarm. It is beyond doubt, in my opinion, that the men concerned and the offender intended by these assaults to achieve a total physical domination of Miss A and to crush any resistance she might have had. From this time until they left the park, Y, H and Hajeid joined with their co-accused and the other men present in the park detaining Miss A for advantage and in detaining Miss B for advantage.
The offender then approached Miss A again. She was by this time sitting on a park seat. Before speaking to her he motioned the other assailants in the red car to go away and they stood some distance away in a group, apparently obeying him.
The following conversation then occurred:
The offender: "I told you it would happen. I warned you what they would do."
Miss A: "You didn't tell me that were going to get violent and tackle me."
The offender: "Yeah, well, if you don't do what they want to do, that's what they do. So, do it now. I'll go over and tell them you don't do anything and they will leave you alone. Do you want to get bashed or not?"
Miss A: "No."
He then had oral sex with her for the second time. He ejaculated in her mouth and she spat out the semen on the ground.
When she did this, the offender walked away, and the four men, who included Y, H and Hajeid, approached her and all stood around demanding - and I quote - "head jobs". After further threats of violence from these men, she had non consensual oral sex with a man described by her as "the fat male", ie H. He said to her: There's no point crying, it won't get you anywhere.
The man described by her as the "WRX male" then said: "Listen guys, I'm the one with the WRX, I'm next." He then demanded oral sex from her or he would bash her, and then had non consensual oral sex with her.
H then came running back and again demanded oral sex, saying he would bash her if he didn't get it, but he was pushed away by another man who also forced non consensual oral sex on her, after putting a condom on his penis. During this sexual assault, this man yelled out: "She's not doing it right. This chick's shit at head jobs."
H assaulted her sexually again, after uttering further threats; and Y also sexually assaulted her, after threatening to bash her. Both of these sexual assaults were oral.
Following this, a group of men ran over to her. She could not identify them. There were not from the red car. One of them said: "Your friend told us you had AIDS or herpes or hepatitis or something. Is it true?" Miss A said: "No, I don't. I don't think my friend would have said that, because I don't." The man then said: "If you're lying, I swear to God we'll get you."
This last exchange in itself indicates the type of person involved in these incidents.
Miss B, having been dragged up to the toilet block, was pushed on to her hands and knees, and the man who had dragged her there took hold of her head and shoulders and forced his penis into her mouth and had oral sex with her. This occurred before Y, H or Hajeid arrived and this was not an act for which they were convicted. I recount this to make it plain that Miss B, from the beginning, was an unwilling participant in forced oral sex.
Following this, she saw that the red car had arrived and that the four occupants were in the park. These four men then surrounded her and demanded oral sex. She enquired about her friend and caught a glimpse of her near some bushes. One of the men assaulted her by snatching a necklace from her neck and breaking it.
Hajeid then grabbed her by the arm and pulled her behind the toilet block. She struggled and protested.
A conversation ensued:
Hajeid: "Give me a head job."
Miss B: "I want to go home."
Hajeid: "I'll take you home after you give me a head job."
Miss B: "No."
She then tried to walk away and was assaulted by another male, the first man who had had non consensual oral sex with her.
Hajeid then grabbed her, forced her behind the toilet block, on to her knees, and holding her head, forced his penis into her mouth. He ejaculated into her mouth and she spat the semen on to the ground.
Following this, Hajeid, H and Y got into the red car and left the park, however the attacks on the two victims continued.
As Miss B came out from behind the toilet block, a man from the van tackled her to the ground. The offender then emerged and said: "Come over here", grabbed her arm and took her behind the toilet block. Two other men, one with light brown hair which was plaited, also came over. The offender said: "Give me a head job." Miss B said: "No. I want to go home."
The man with the plaited hair said: "If you don't do it, worse things will happen to you", and he slapped her across the face.
The offender then forced her to the ground, forced his penis into her mouth and had non consensual oral sex with her. While his penis was in her mouth, his mobile phone rang and Miss B heard him say: "I'll be home in ten minutes."
When he finished, she got up off the ground and saw most of the men running to the van. However, one of them, no doubt wishing to inflict a final indignity on her, tackled her to the ground.
Miss B ran after these men because her handbag, with her wallet and mobile phone in it, was in the car. The man who had just tackled her, tackled her again and made threats which persuaded her not to get up until the van departed.
Just before the man tackled Miss B for the first time, Miss A emerged from behind the pergola. She was attacked by a man who stole her watch and her mobile phone. She saw Miss B being tackled.
The offender and his companions then abandoned these two helpless victims, late at night, in a park at Greenacre. They had no phones, no money, did not know where they were. They were distraught, crying and feeling the effects of these repeated rapes and assaults. They were terrified. Fortunately, a man and his wife were returning home in a car at the time, saw them and rescued them.
The evidence at the trial established that each of the accused and some others had regular mobile phone contact with one another. Hajeid and Y each formally admitted that they were long time friends and companions and that they knew the offender.
Hajeid and Y did not give any evidence, nor did they give interviews to the police. What each of them did at the trial was to attack the identification evidence of each of the complainants. This was done at very great length and I have no doubt that it increased the suffering of each of the complainants.
In the case of the offender, he chose to mount the entirely false case that each of complainants was a willing, if not eager, sexual partner. This case was put to each of the complainants and, I am sure, increased the sense of anguish that each felt.
He also gave evidence that each of his co-accused was with him at the park at Greenacre, which, of course, resulted in counsel for each of these two men attacking his credibility.
The Crown also attacked his credibility, something made easier when he falsely claimed from the witness box that he was a man of good character. This led to an application that I permit the Crown to prove his criminal record. I agreed, and he was shown to have criminal convictions for dishonesty.
What this trial showed was that he was the leader of the pack, a liar, a bully, a coward, callous and mean.
He is, in truth, a menace to any civilised society.
These crimes are very serious crimes. Sexual intercourse without consent is always a serious crime.
It goes without saying that a woman is always entitled to refuse to engage in sexual intercourse. Consent can be refused at any time, even if previously the woman may have indicated a willingness to engage in sexual activity of some kind. There is evidence of some kissing and cuddling engaged in by Miss B, but it is clear beyond doubt that each of Miss A and Miss B at all stages made it plain that they would not engage in any form of sexual intercourse.
What makes the sexual assault offences very serious in this case, in my opinion, is that they were all committed in the company of the assailant and of seven other men. This was the aggravating feature charged and proved.
Additionally, each sexual assault offence, each assault offence and each offence of kidnapping was a joint criminal enterprise.
Gosling Park Greenacre 12 August 2000:
The offender was convicted on 11 July 2002 of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The victim was Miss D.
X1, the brother of the offender, persuaded the complainant that she should accompany him on a car trip to the city. She had known him as a friend for about six months and her mother knew him. She was sixteen years old.
When she approached the car, which was at about 9pm, she noticed that two other men, Ibrahim and Michael as she later found out they there, were in the car. This surprised her, and she found it even more surprising when the car was driven to Gosling Park, Greenacre, where it stopped.
During the journey there were mobile phone calls from those in the car to persons outside. Those calls were in Arabic. Miss D did not know Arabic, and what she also did not know was that X1 and the offender had been phoning each other before X1 came to her house.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender arranged with his brother to pick up the complainant and take her to Gosling Park so that he, the offender, and numerous other men could have forced sex with her.
X1 used various ploys to persuade her she should wait in the park with him. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did this so that the vehicles containing the offender and somewhere between eleven and fourteen men would have time to arrive, and thus be able to seize and rape her.
X1 and his companions tried to persuade her to have sex with them, but she refused.
Eventually, two cars, one of them a white van, arrived and the offender got out. X1 then disappeared.
The offender attempted to persuade her to go for a walk with him and, when she declined, he seized her by the hair and summoned the others, who all laid hands on her and joined with him in dragging her to a place in this park near some concrete tanks.
Here she was forced on to the ground. The men surrounded her, pulled her clothes off and put their hands all over her body, some of them penetrating her vagina with their fingers.
The offender then raped her vaginally. She struggled and resisted, but to no avail. When he had finished, another man did the same.
To induce her to stop struggling, one man produced a gun, held it to her head and threatened to kill her.
She was an extraordinarily brave, assertive and determined girl, and she managed to break free from this band after the second rape and ran across the park to a telephone box.
The prisoner and the others got into the white van and pursued her. The van pulled up at the telephone box and one of them produced a gun and ordered her to get inside. By this time she was hysterical.
Luckily, a man came around the corner, saw her plight and approached. Those in the van departed hastily from the scene. This man took her to his flat, calmed her down and helped her to call a friend who eventually came and took her home.
Had she not been uncommonly courageous, I am convinced she would have been raped by all those present with the offender.
What was done to her was violent, fear inducing, degrading and utterly callous. She was literally staked out on the ground. She has said in evidence and in her victim impact statement that she thought she would be killed.
The prisoner and these men treated her much like wild animals treat prey they have just killed.
Bankstown 30 August 2000:
On 30 Australia 2000, Miss C was raped by fourteen men in a series of orgiastic attacks. The first such rapes occurred in toilets in Marion Street, Bankstown. Here she was sexually assaulted by four men, one of them assaulting her twice.
She was then passed over to another group. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this group, in a black car, had been summoned to the scene by mobile phone messages passed on by the first group of attackers. The men in this car talked with some of the attackers from the toilets, and one of those attackers joined them.
There were three men in this second group. One of them, H, had been with the group that sexually assaulted her in the car park toilets, but he had not assaulted her there.
She was taken by this car to a car park near the Bankstown Trotting Club. Here, despite her protests, she was vaginally raped once and orally raped twice. H, who was one of the rapists on this occasion, was in mobile phone contact with the offender at this time, and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, between them, arrangements were made for the holding of Miss C until the offender, Chami, Y, and another man known only as "Nike Sam" arrived.
When these men finished, the two door red sedan, driven by Chami, and with the offender, another man known only as "Nike Sam", and Y, as his passengers, pulled up in the car park near the Bankstown Trotting Club. Y was the front seat passenger.
The complainant saw the occupants of the black car go over to the red car and talk to its occupants. This enables me to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the men in the red car were told of the rapes that had already occurred.
If there was any doubt about this matter, in his record of interview Chami claimed: "Well, I copped a phone call from" - and I interpolate the letter "X" - "he told me there's a slut at the Bankstown Trotting Club."
In my opinion there is not the slightest doubt that the offender Chami, and the others in the red car, knew before they arrived at the Bankstown Trotting Club car park that the complainant had already been sexually assaulted by numerous men in toilets at Bankstown and in a black car at the car park. Of course, they may not have been aware of every detail of these assaults.
She was persuaded by false representations by Chami that these men would take her home, and to get into the red car. owever, what happened was that the red car was driven to an area near Chami's house. He got out and got back in.
On this journey the back seat passengers, the offender and "Nike Sam", penetrated her vagina with their fingers and made her touch their penises. They also touched her on the breasts. Y turned around to observe this activity, all of which was non consensual. Clearly, the detention of Miss C commenced from the time that she was in the red car and the back seat passengers started to assault her.
The car stopped at a service station. Y, who was the front seat passenger, got out. Miss C thought she would take the opportunity presented by his absence to do the same, but when she attempted to get out, Chami pulled something from the glove box of his car, which she thought was a gun, held it to her head and said: "Don't move, bitch, or you're dead." At this time she was attempting to climb between the two front seats to get out of the car. Because of this threat, she did not get out. She must have suffered great fear and distress at this point, perhaps wondering whether or not she would be killed.
Chami drove the car on to an industrial estate at Chullora. At the industrial estate, the male passengers got out, but prevented her from getting out by holding the two doors shut from the outside.
Chami then got in the back seat, unzipped his pants, sat next to her, pulled his penis out and put a condom on it. She said: "You're not going to do it too?" To which he replied: "Fuck me." He then pushed her on her back, pulled up her skirt, pulled down her underwear completely and spread her legs as far as possible and had vaginal intercourse with her. She was crying at the time. By this time she had been vaginally raped three times and orally rape five times. Seven men had been involved.
It is difficult to think of a more serious rape offence than these particular offences, committed as they were after the perpetrators, knowing she had been previously raped by a number of men, and threatened by the actions of one of them with a gun, then each of them raped her.
For the purpose of the other rapes, Chami stayed out of the car. And when the next car arrived, he then drove the passengers away from the scene.
At the car park, Y had vaginal interview with her against her will on one occasion, and on two occasions had oral sex with her as well. The offender also had vaginal sex with her, which occurred in similar circumstances to the vaginal sex I have described above.
He was also charged with forcing non consensual anal sex on her. A jury could not agree on it. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was in the car, he was kneeling behind her at the same time as Y was forcing oral sex on her, and he was, at the very least, attempting to anally penetrate her at the same time that Y was forcing oral sex on her.
When these men had their way, another car pulled up, and the men from the two cars talked. It is clear they also knew where to come and that they had arrived by arrangements made by mobile phone calls. One of this last group was X1, the brother of the offender. He had been the principal assailant in the Marion Street Carpark and he and the other three men in the last car then all raped the complainant.
Before the offender, Chami and the other two left the scene, Chami's car was hosed down. The person with the hose turned it onto the complainant and hosed her until she was soaking wet. The offender was present while this occurred and this was obviously intended to make the complainant feel degraded.
Y, the offender and Hajeid obviously were all involved in a similar attacks on 10 August and the offender and his brother were involved in similar attacks on 12 August.
I refer now in the judgment to the sentences which I imposed on 14 June 2002 of Hajeid. The result of those sentences was the imposition of a head sentence on him of 23 years and a non-parole period of 15 years.
On 9 August 2002 I sentenced Chami. The result of that was a head sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and six months. He was dealt with for two offences, one of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent and one of detention.
The offender has participated in a series of gang rapes, on 10, 12 and 30 August 2000. What occurred on 30 August was a series of gang rapes on that one night in itself.
As I have earlier remarked these crimes were carefully planned and coordinated. The degree of planning and coordination distinguishes these crimes from other cases of gang rape which have been reported from time to time, which are often, if not usually, perpetrated by intoxicated men who have seized an opportunity which has been presented to them.
None of these crimes happened on the spur of the moment. None of the assailants was in any way affected by alcohol or drugs. In my opinion, the evidence of the three trials establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was the leader of the gang on all occasions and must be regarded as the worst of all offenders. He is a menace to society. He has declined to give any explanation of the reasons for these attacks and refuses to express any remorse or contrition.
Submissions on sentence.
On 15 August 2002 I heard submissions. Mr Healey made it plain that he was constrained by his instructions and would be not presenting any evidence, oral or in writing. He acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, but urged upon me to impose for each of the first and second episodes, sentences which were no greater in total than those imposed on Chami and Hajeid. He submitted I should make the sentences for perversion of the course of justice concurrent with the other sentences. He said that the offences had taken place over a 20 day period and he asked that I impose a sentence that would ensure that his client spent no more than 20 years in gaol. He agreed there was no evidence of remorse or contrition. He submitted it could not be said that his client was a gang leader.
The Crown submitted that the offender was the gang leader and that should be a substantial cumulation of sentences. The Crown submitted that a 20 year non-parole period would not be sufficient.
Background of the Offender.
He was born on 14 September 1981. His parents came from Lebanon. He left school at 14 years old without a school certificate and to the extent that he has worked, he has been at times a spray painter and for a short time he worked with the State Rail Authority. He has convictions for larceny and shoplifting, as well as various offences relating to driving, committed when he was a juvenile. There was evidence at the trial that he possessed a driver's licence in a false name and that he used false names from time to time.
He has expressed neither remorse or contrition. Indeed, during the trial and during the sentencing proceedings he has conducted himself as if the proceedings were a joke.
Victim Impact Statements.
Each of the victims has submitted a Victim Impact Statement. I have carefully considered each one. Clearly each victim has suffered greatly and will continue to suffer. The sentences which I impose will take that into account. I would like to commend each of the complainants for their courage and strength in these proceedings. Each one of them found the trials to be a great ordeal. The people of this State owe them a great debt. If they had not been prepared to come forward and to persist, this dangerous group of offenders could not have been brought to justice.
In the judgments on Hajeid and Chami I have expressed my views on the seriousness of the offences of this type and of the legal considerations which govern sentence. I have no need to repeat those observations here. These sex offences are offences of the worst type and deserve to be dealt with accordingly.
The offender has been in custody since 16 March 2001. He has also spent a further earlier period of custody of one month and four days. I propose to take those periods into account.
Trial One - 10 August 2001.
He was the ring leader. When he had actual intercourse with Miss A and Miss B he should be regarded as an offender of the worst type and in respect of each of those offences he should get the maximum sentence of 20 years. In respect of the offences of sexual intercourse without consent committed by others he should get 15 years on each matter. Each of the offences of detention merits seven years and each assault merits two years.
Trial Two - 12 August 2000.
These are offences of the worst kind and each offence merits a 20 year sentence.
Trial Three - 30 August 2000.
The act of sexual intercourse without consent are offences of the worst kind and merit sentences of 20 years on each. The detention charge warrants a seven year sentence. The aggravated acts of indecency warrant two years imprisonment and each offence of perversion of the course of justice warrants seven years imprisonment. These two offences involved him in plans to procure false evidence to assist him and his brother. Courts cannot tolerate such offences
I turn now to the particular offences and the particular sentences. I am going to detail the sentences. I make it plain that but for the principle of totality these sentences would in total be much longer. The principle of totality requires, that, having considered all the individual sentences, I look at the effect of all of them. I try to work out the criminality involved as a total matter and I then impose a sentence which is consonant with that criminality. The principle of totality means that particular individual sentences in a total sentence could receive a lesser sentence than if they were imposed on a sole offender for one offence. If that were not so and I just cumulated every sentence, the offender would get a sentence that was utterly unrealistic and it would be beyond his own lifetime. Courts cannot impose such sentences.
I also take into account the fact that he is not charged with offences that carry life sentences and I must impose sentences which give him some hope of release before his life ends. I have to make it plain that the sentences which I am about to impose in total mean that he will spend most of his life in gaol.
I propose to impose a sentence which in total is one of 55 years and there will be a non-parole period of almost 40 years.
The particular details I will now set out. I will deal with the individual trials.
The first trial is a trial relating to events at Northcote Park, Greenacre on 10 August 2000. The offender was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. 14 counts.
Counts 3 and 5 were his forced sexual intercourse of Miss A. Count 14 was his forced sexual intercourse of Miss B. Because of the principle of totality I propose to make the sentences on counts 3 and 5 concurrent with one another.
In respect of each of those counts there will be a sentence of 20 years. The sentence will commence on 16 March 2001 and will conclude on 11 February 2021. There will be a non-parole period of 14 years which will commence on 16 March 2001 and will go to 11 February 2015. I make it plain where I specify non-parole periods I am giving the offender close to the statutory period available, as he shows no contrition or remorse. If anything, he demonstrates just straight out contempt for the whole proceedings. I see no reason to give him the benefit of any significant reduction in his parole period.
In relation to count 14 that will be partly cumulative on counts 3 and 5. That sentence will commence on 16 March 2011 and conclude on 11 February 2031. There will be a non-parole period which will commence on 16 March 2011 and conclude on 11 February 2020.
Counts 1 and 2 are counts of detaining Miss A for advantage and Miss B for advantage. Because of the effect of the principle of totality and having regard to the overall fact that these detentions occurred in the general context of the transactions, the sentences of seven years which I have determined are appropriate, will be served concurrently with counts 3 and 5. They will commence on 16 March 2001 and conclude on 11 February 2008. They will be fixed term sentences.
Counts 4, 11 and 13 were all offences of assault. I have detailed those assaults. I have indicated there should be two year sentences. I propose to make those sentences concurrent with the sentences for counts 3 and 5. They will commence on 16 March 2001 and conclude on 11 February 2008.
Counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are all offences committed by other men, but which for the offender was convicted because he was a principal in the second degree to their occurring. Those offences I have decided should be served concurrently with counts 3 and 5.
Accordingly, for each of those offences I sentence the offender for a period of imprisonment of 20 years to commence on 16 March 2001 and to conclude on 11 February 2021. I order the non-parole period to commence on 16 March 2001 and conclude on 11 February 2015.
The second trial, in point of time concerned the events that occurred at Gosling Park, Greenacre on 12th August 2000. There were two offences. I propose to sentence the offender to twenty years imprisonment on each offence. Because of the principle of totality I do not propose to make them cumulative on one another, or even partially cumulative on one another, because to do so would be to increase the sentence beyond the bounds the law would tolerate.
I do propose to make these sentences which are concurrent with one another, partly cumulative on the offences committed in the first trial.
In respect of each of these offences I sentence the offender to twenty years imprisonment. That sentence will be cumulative on the sentence I impose for count 14 in the previous trial, so that sentence will commence on 16 March 2021 and will conclude on 11 February 2041. The non-parole period will commence on 16 March 2021 and will conclude on 11 February 2030.
In the third trial, which concerned events on 30th August, 2000, the offender was convicted on counts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10, and also pleaded guilty to counts 16 and 17, hence he was convicted of them as well.
He was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Count 6 related to his insertion of his fingers in the vagina of the complainant whilst they were in the car, and count 10 related to his vaginal intercourse in a car with his penis, subsequently.
These sentences will be partly cumulative and partly concurrent. On count 6 I sentence him to twenty years imprisonment which will commence on 16 March 2031. It will conclude on 11 February 2051. His non-parole period will commence on 16 March 2031 and will conclude on 11 August 2037.
In respect of count 10, I make that partly concurrent and partly cumulative. I will be increasing the over all sentence by five years. It merits more, but to impose any more as a total would be to take a total sentence beyond the bounds of reality.
That sentence of twenty years will commence on 16 March 2036 and conclude on 11 February 2056. There will be a non-parole period commencing on 16 March 2036 and concluding on 11 February, 2040, upon which date the offender may, if otherwise eligible, be released. He is then to be on supervised parole with the Probation and Parole Service for such part of the remainder of his sentence as they deem appropriate.
The offender's head sentence then will conclude on 11 February, 2056 and his non-parole period will conclude on 11 February, 2040.
At that stage he will have been in custody for forty years. Hopefully he will no longer be a menace to society. The offender may be removed.
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2487