R v ZAOUI [2010] NSWDC 179

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v ZAOUI [2010] NSWDC 179

HEARING DATE(S): 10 June 2010 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 10 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Appeal partially allowed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Severity Appeal - Obtain money by deception

PARTIES: The Crown Samir Zaoui

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/00239616; DC 2009/00239656; DC 2009/00239692; DC 2010/00065145

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Samir Zaoui hit upon a remarkably simple way of defrauding people of money. He would go into a small business, usually a pizza store or something similar, and say that his car had broken down, it needed a new battery and the NRMA wanted some money to replace the battery. He must have been quite convincing because he seems to have been very successful. There are more than fifty occasions when the offender has, through those means, obtained money from people by that deception. On occasions there was not enough money in the till to pay him the money that he required and so employees would provide their own money. On one occasion he even went with an employee to an ATM, it did not work so they went to a second ATM before finally the employee handed over $400. This money appears to have been spent by Mr Zaoui on drugs. He was an industrious, hardworking conman.

2 The magistrate dealing with these very many offences dealt with them in various ways, but they ultimately ended up with an effective sentence of imprisonment of two years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. That is, there was no finding of special circumstances made. The offender has a long term drug history and has been provisionally accepted into Odyssey House. Ms Neil asks that I make a finding of special circumstances, extend the period of eligibility of the parole at the expense of the non-parole period, but nevertheless order that it be a condition of his parole that he enter into residential drug rehabilitation. Of course, that could mean that the offender actually spends longer in custody than he would at present. If, for example, when his non-parole period expires there is no suitable residential rehabilitation program for him, or he does not qualify for some particular reason, he will do two years in custody rather than eighteen months as is presently the case. Ms Neil spoke to her client about that and Mr Zaoui indicated his willingness and indeed a desire to have his non-parole period reduced and his period of eligibility for parole extended on the firm understanding that he would only get parole if he entered residential rehabilitation.