Regina v Simon TAOUK [2004] NSWSC 981

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Simon TAOUK [2004] NSWSC 981 revised - 22/10/2004 HEARING DATE(S) : 24/05/2004 to 22/06/2004, 15/10/2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 22 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1 DECISION : See para. 44

CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - sentencing - murder. PARTIES : Regina v Simon TAOUK FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70077/2003 COUNSEL : Crown: Ms Dwyer Defence: Mr J Spencer SOLICITORS : Crown: S C Kavanagh Defence: Horowitz & Bilinsky

- 11 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Graham Barr J

22 October 2004

70077/03 REGINA v Simon TAOUK

SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Simon Taouk, was found guilty by a jury of the murders of Salam Taouk and Tony Taouk. The offender and Salam Taouk had been married for many years and had six adult children. They and five of the children lived in a house in Strathfield. Almost all the members of the Taouk family were employed in one way and another by a family design and construction company. So was the deceased Tony Taouk, who was Salam Taouk's brother. He used to stay with the offender and Salam Taouk from time to time, depending on where his work took him. He was staying with them on the night of the murders. 2 28 September 2002 was a Saturday. The offender suggested to Salam Taouk that they spend the evening out together, but she had already arranged to visit relatives who lived in another suburb of Sydney. She and one of their daughters, Madeline, went out as arranged. During the evening they met another daughter, Helen, who had been visiting a friend. The three arrived home together a little after 2am on 29 September 2002. One of the sons of the family, Maroun, and Tony Taouk went out with a friend on the same evening. They arrived back at the house at about the same time as Salam, Madeline and Helen. Maroun and Tony Taouk entered the house and the friend went home. 3 The offender was at home when the two parties returned. When he saw Salam, Madeline and Helen he became angry, pacing about the house and yelling, calling them "sneaky" and "liars". Then he stormed out of the house into the back yard. The members of the family went to their rooms and prepared to go to bed. Another two of their children, Myrna and Mark, were already asleep in the house. Myrna was in one of the bedrooms upstairs, which she ordinarily shared with Madeline. Mark was asleep in a room downstairs. 4 There were five bedrooms upstairs. The principal room was shared by the offender and Salam Taouk. Next to it was a room that was being used by Tony Taouk. Next to it, and facing the offender's bedroom across a landing, was a room occupied by Maroun and, normally, Mark. Next to it were rooms occupied respectively by Helen and by Madeline and Myrna. 5 Not long after everyone had retired, six bullets were fired from a revolver from the landing adjacent to the bedrooms. One of them struck Salam Taouk in the back and another struck Tony Taouk in the chest. Salam Taouk was badly hurt and must have died quite quickly. Her body was found on the landing between the doors of her and Tony Taouk's bedrooms. Tony Taouk managed to get himself downstairs and out into the back yard of the house. He died there. Three of the bullets which missed their target entered the bedroom of Tony Taouk. Another entered Helen's bedroom. 6 The jury's verdicts show that the two bullets which struck the deceased were fired by the offender, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the remaining bullets also were fired by him, since the evidence is that all the shots were fired in quick succession. 7 The children emerged from their rooms and saw their mother, but realised that they could do nothing to help her. They made several telephone calls to emergency services on mobile telephones and on the service connected to the house. They did not realise until later on that Tony Taouk also had been shot and had died. 8 The accused hurriedly left the house within a short time after the shooting. 9 Some of the telephone calls to emergency services, if not all of them, were made before the offender left the house. They were tape-recorded. One was made by Maroun Taouk. In the tape recording he can be heard saying in an agitated voice - …hand me the gun. Where did you get the gun from? 10 I am satisfied, notwithstanding the assertions of Maroun Taouk to the contrary, that they were the words spoken. I am satisfied that the offender was present during the conversation, not only because of the evidence of Mrs Zakie Estephan, who identified his voice on the tape recording, but because the surrounding circumstances show that he must then have been present in possession of the gun. 11 The offender arrived at Burwood Police Station at 3:15am and had this conversation with Constable Munro at the counter - The offender : I want to report a disturbance at my house. Constable Munro : What happened? The offender : I have just shot someone. I had an argument with my brother and he had a gun. I took it off him and I fired a few shots. Constable Munro : Is anyone hurt? The offender : I don't know. 12 The offender prefers to speak Arabic. Even so, I am satisfied that he has a working understanding of English and can make himself understood with reasonable accuracy. I accept the evidence of Constable Munro that he could understand what the offender was saying to him in English. 13 Several hours later he was more formally interviewed and had the services of an interpreter. He was asked to confirm what he had said to Constable Munro. He agreed that he had said that he wanted to report a disturbance at his house but denied saying that he had just shot someone. He said that he had said that Tony shot somebody and that he had tried to stop him. He said that he had told Constable Munro that his brother-in-law had come to his house carrying a gun, that he was shooting at people, that he tried to shoot the offender and that he, the offender, had tried to help him and that Tony had kept shooting at a lot of others, who got shot. 14 He told the interviewer that he had been speaking to members of the family when Tony Taouk had got up and started shooting. He agreed that he had said that he had taken the gun off his brother-in-law. He said that he had lost control. He did not know whether he had carried the gun or still had the gun or whether Tony Taouk had thrown the gun onto the floor. He said that at the beginning of the incident Tony Taouk was holding the gun. He had slapped the offender on the face and kicked him in the groin. 15 He made a further explanation of the way in which things began. He said that he was speaking to his family, especially his wife. Tony Taouk was in his room and when he heard the offender talking to his wife he asked what was wrong with the offender. He said to the offender that if he did not like to stay there he should divorce his wife and go away. That was when he slapped and kicked him. The offender held the hand of Tony Taouk which was holding the gun. Tony was shooting the gun. That all happened in the room being used by Tony Taouk. The gun was a black handgun. He had not seen it before. Later on he repeated that Tony Taouk was the only person firing the gun. When asked where Salam Taouk was when that was happening he said that he did not know. 16 He said that Tony Taouk and his wife had come home together. He, the offender, saw Salam Taouk when she came home with him and began to speak to her normally. He went downstairs and after that did not see his wife. He did not recall her being anywhere near him and Tony Taouk when they fought. He said that Tony Taouk tried to push him backwards until they reached the stairs. After that he did not know what happened. He had run into the street to come to the police station to report what had happened. 17 He said that he did not know what had become of the gun. 18 The ambulance and the police arrived at the house at about the same time, within a few minutes of the telephone calls. Other than the offender, all those who had been present in the house at the time of the shootings were still there. None of them had had any opportunity to leave the house for long enough to dispose of the gun. Within the next few hours the police undertook a thorough search of a wide area around the house but did not find the gun. 19 I conclude that the offender disposed of the gun. He must have heard the children making telephone calls to emergency services and must have known that the police would soon arrive. He knew that there was no reason to go to a police station. He could have told the police what had happened more quickly and easily by staying where he was. His only reason for leaving the house must have been to dispose of the gun. He was alone between the house and Burwood police station for far enough and long enough to have done so. If he had returned to the house after disposing of the gun he would have had to explain his absence. He could not innocently have done so. That, I think, is why he went to Burwood Police Station and reported the shooting. 20 Even then, he was not prepared to tell the whole truth. The account which came closest to the truth was the one he gave at the counter to Constable Munro. I think that he told that officer the truth when he said that there had been a shooting and that he had fired shots. He was not telling the truth, however, when he said that he did not know if anyone had been hurt. I am satisfied that he then knew that Tony Taouk had been hurt, even though he may not have known that he had died, and that his wife had died. 21 The evidence shows that Tony Taouk had started getting ready for bed when he was shot. On a chair in his room were his shirt and jacket. When his body was found he was wearing a singlet and jeans. Scientific evidence shows that when the gun was discharged the muzzle was probably partially touching the singlet. 22 The evidence also shows that Salam Taouk was shot from close quarters. There was gunshot residue on her hands. She could not have got that from the wound, for she was shot in the back, and it may have come from the plume of matter discharged by the gun or from touching the gun. 23 I am satisfied that in what the offender told the police through the interpreter he made no real attempt to give a truthful account but tried to explain, in a manner consistent with his innocence, facts which he believed the police would discover. 24 During the hours after their attendance the police searched the whole of the premises. Behind the house was a garage. The doors were open and there was a step ladder standing in position under an open trapdoor in the ceiling. Scientific officers tested the ceiling around the trapdoor for traces of gunshot residue. They found nothing.