A Sydney man, 24 years of age, working a software engineer was charged with film persons private parts without consent – aggravated as girl was 14 years of age. This is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
He stood behind her on the escalator at Wynyard station and placed his mobile phone under her skirt, he was seen by her parents as they were standing next to her, they chased him down, made him delete it and told nearby police.
He initially claimed it was an accident and denied he did it. Eventually, he came to terms with the fact that he had an underlying medical condition and admitted to doing it and sought rehabilitation.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr Faraj made submissions to the court, asking for the court to not send him to prison but in fact, issue a Community Corrections Order given his strong subjective case (rehab, nil criminal history, apology and remorse). An Intensive Corrections Order was not available as it’s a prescribed sexual offence. The man’s sentencing options were between a rare Community Corrections Order or full-time imprisonment for up to 5 years.
The prosecution opposed it, tendering a victim impact statement and making submissions that it is at the high end of objective seriousness and extremely aggravated and only full-time is suitable.
Mr Faraj in turn argued that it was actually at the lower end, given when comparing to other cases before the court, the level of sophistication in his offending was very low and it was not planned, he acted impulsively at the time due to his medical condition and therefore, it would be at the lower end of objective seriousness.
The court agreed and on this occasion, given his nil criminal record, strong prospects of rehabilitation, his genuine remorse shown and the low level of objective seriousness, a Community Corrections Order was a suitable option and man avoided a lengthy jail sentence, allowing him to continue his rehabilitation and move on with his life.
Featured In
Stay Connected
Contact Us
More results
More ResultsOur client, who was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, has been found not guilty after the complainant was cross-examined and discredited on the stand, exposing her allegations as false and fabricated.
Our client, who was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, has been found not guilty after the complainant was cross-examined and discredited on the stand, exposing her allegations as false and fabricated.
Read More...Sydney man wins battle against 5 police officers in court
The evidence before the court was his version of events, against the versions of 5 police officers who were present at the scene.
Read More...Not guilty verdicts awarded for serious domestic violence allegations
The prosecution case was picked apart through cross-examination as neither the complainant, nor the police could explain the inconsistencies in their evidence and photographs of the alleged injuries.
Read More...
