Crown v Accused

1. At your plea hearing, there were a number of disputed facts regarding the circumstances of the offence.
2. You disputed that you attended the deceased's home expecting him to be at home. I find to the contrary. You expected the deceased to be home. It is why you acted opportunistically, in the belief that others would be suspected of being the culprits. It is also why you and your co-offenders went 'armed to the teeth'.
3. At your plea hearing, you also disputed that you intended to shoot the deceased. Again, I find to the contrary. You deliberately discharged the firearm. The gun was pointing in the direction of the deceased when you discharged it. You were relatively close to him. Further, you indicated to the covert operatives that you deliberately shot the deceased.[2] You did not suggest to the covert operatives that you fired to miss.

1. Victim impact statements were made by the deceased's father and four of the friends of the deceased who were present at his home when you and your co-offenders barged in.
2. His father, Belthrand Habiyakare, is devastated by the loss of his son. He writes that it has profoundly affected his mental health. He has difficulty concentrating, he suffers panic attacks, he feels he failed to protect his son and he is fearful for his other children. He now struggles in his leadership role in the Burundian community and withdrew from his Masters at Melbourne University.
3. The victim statements of Aasha Beasley, August Niranyibagira, Maya Wolkoski and Tiggy Atakelt, powerfully portray the terror of their ordeal, and the enduring impact it has had on each of them. One theme is their loss of a sense of safety, even at home. August Niranyibagira, a close friend of the deceased, writes, referring to you and your co-offenders: 'How do they live with themselves knowing that my life and all the others will never be the same, the hurt and trauma lingering on?'.

1. I consider yours to be upper range examples of both offences.
2. In relation to the offence of homicide by firearm, the aggravating circumstances are as follows:
   • the offence occurred in the deceased's home;
   • the home invasion involved considerable premeditation;
   • you thought it likely that the deceased would be at home;
   • the home invasion was committed in company;
   • three of you were armed and masked;
   • you terrorised not only the deceased but his friends as well;
   • you deliberately discharged the firearm at relatively close range, intending to hit the deceased.
3. In relation to the offence of handling stolen property, the aggravating circumstances are as follows:
   • the property in question was a working firearm;
   • you sold it to a person whom you believed to be the head of a criminal organisation;
   • you sold it in circumstances where you had killed someone with a firearm only a few months earlier.

1. I turn then to your personal history and circumstances.
2. You were born in Australia on 24 June 2003, making you 18 at the time of the offences and 21 now.

1. Your parents are both from the Sudan. Your mother, who is a qualified NDIS worker, arrived in Australia in 1998 and your father, who is an accredited interpreter and holds a PhD in sociology, arrived in 2001.
2. You have two younger siblings. Your brother is 18 and is training to be a real estate agent. Your sister is 16 and currently completing Year 11. You also have two older half‑siblings, being your father's children from a previous marriage.
3. Your parents separated prior to 2009.
4. You indicated to a forensic psychologist, whose report I will discuss in more detail below, that your childhood was mostly positive, though there were financial hardships. Your family lived in the Flemington housing commission flats.
5. You attended a number of schools, passing Year 12 of VCAL.
6. During your teens, you worked at Woolworths, KFC and an uncle's restaurant, but you were not in paid employment for a couple of years prior to your offences.
7. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, to your credit, you did volunteer work for the Muslim Social Service Agency and the Islamic Council of Victoria's food relief campaign in housing commission flats.
8. You began using cannabis in Year 10 and your drug use escalated during the pandemic. As well as using cannabis on a daily basis, you used cocaine, Xanax and oxycodone from time to time.
9. At the time of your arrest, you were living with your mother and sister.
10. Your parents, an aunt, your brother and one of your half-brothers were present for your plea hearing.
11. Your family continue to support you in custody, visiting you weekly and speaking to you daily on the phone.

1. Your counsel submitted that you have spent your time in custody productively. You do gardening work five days per week. A Prisoner Education Summary Report was tendered at your plea hearing. It indicates that you have participated in 24 courses whilst on remand, most of them skills and job orientated. You hope to study a business or IT course at university level whilst undergoing sentence, a very good idea.

1. Six character references were tendered on your behalf.
2. Your mother claims that you have a quiet, non-violent nature. She says that during the pandemic you reunited with friends from your old neighbourhood in Flemington, which was not a positive development. She claims you have never stopped showing remorse for your offending. She says she and the family continue to support you in custody and will do so upon your release.
3. Your father says you were a quiet child, who never got into any trouble at school and that you are close to your family. He says that during the pandemic you were associating more with peers from the Flemington housing commission flats and started coming home very late at night, smelling of nicotine. During your time in custody, he says the family have been very supportive, visiting and calling you. He says you have demonstrated 'a significant desire to change for the better'.
4. Your half-brother, Mohammed, claims that you are a shy, non-violent person and that your offending was out of character. He believes you are remorseful and puts your offending down to peer pressure. He says you are a changed person.
5. Shadia Mohamed Aly, speaking on behalf of the Eritrean Young Mothers Group, says she has known you since 2010 when your family joined the group. She indicates you were always an energetic, helpful and well-behaved participant in the group's activities.
6. Barry Berih, the founder and chair of an organisation called Young Australian People, says he has known you since 2018. He refers to your closeness to your family and your involvement in voluntary community work with young people, connecting them to sport and work. He thinks you have the potential to rebuild your life and 'continue serving as a role model for young people'.
7. Mukhtar Mohammed, the coordinator of Muslim Connect, refers to your volunteer work over several weeks as part of the food relief campaign run by the Australian Muslim Social Services Agency and the Islamic Council of Victoria during the pandemic. He says you were a reliable, honest and kind volunteer. Muslim Connect will support you in your reintegration into society.

1. The procedural history of your case does not sit comfortably with the claim that you have been continuously remorseful for your offending.
2. On 16 March 2022, you were arrested, charged with murder and remanded in custody.
3. On 14 March 2023, you ran a contested committal hearing along with your co-offenders Mohamed Mohamed and Daniel Sisal, who were also facing a murder charge at that time.
4. On 24 November 2023, Mohamed and Sisal pleaded guilty to manslaughter on a complicity basis.
5. On 28 November 2023, you offered to plead guilty to manslaughter (but on the basis that you were not the one who discharged the firearm) and handling stolen goods, which offer the prosecution rejected the next day.
6. On 2 February, 2024, Croucher J gave you a sentence indication in relation to homicide by firearm (on the basis that you were the shooter) and handling stolen property.
7. On 5 February 2024, you rejected the sentence indication.
8. From 2 to 9 September 2024, I heard pre-trial submissions regarding your objection to the admissibility of evidence.
9. On 16 September 2024, I handed down my rulings on the admissibility of evidence.
10. On 18 September 2024, you applied for certification for an interlocutory appeal against my rulings. The trial which was to commence in September was adjourned to a date to be fixed, but I indicated I would make myself available to preside over the trial in October.
11. On 1 October 2024, the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed your interlocutory appeal.
12. On 8 October 2024, you pleaded guilty.

1. You were assessed by a forensic psychologist, Dr Godfredson, who provided a report. You gave him a self-serving account of your offending. You told Dr Godfredson the following:[3]
   • that you were informed by your co-offenders on the way to the deceased's home that the plan involved stealing a large sum of money;
   • that the premises were expected to be unoccupied;
   • that you were handed a gun in the car;
   • you waited near the car as others entered the house;
   • you eventually followed the others;
   • you saw others forcefully enter the house;
   • you could hear shouting coming from inside the house;
   • during a struggle in the house, you lifted the gun and fired a shot but did not intend to harm anyone;
   • you were heavily intoxicated at the time of the home invasion, having consumed approximately 15 Xanax tablets, cannabis and other substances;
   • you denied owning or regularly carrying weapons;
   • you were just the go-between in relation to the sale of the Beretta.
2. Not only is this version of events self-serving, it is self-evidently inconsistent in a number of respects with the following facts alleged in [6] of the prosecution's summary, which your counsel said were not disputed, namely:

a. Alhassan planned with Mohamed Mohamed, Daniel Sisal and [another] to commit an aggravated home invasion at Habiyakare's home with intent to rob Habiyakare of monies that were thought to be within. > > b. The group decided to target Habiyakare's home because they knew he had a "beef" with a Somalian associate (Abdisalan) and believed that the Police would think that Abdisalan was responsible for the home invasion. > > ... > > d. Alhassan, along with his co-offenders, entered Habiyakare's home. Alhassan was armed with a loaded, sawn off .22 firearm. At least two of his co-offenders were armed. One was armed with a machete, whereas another was armed with a taser. Alhassan was wearing a partial face covering and gloves at the time. > > e. The intruders pushed Habiyakare into the hallway and eventually into the living room. They were yelling at Habiyakare. At one-point Habiyakare stated words to the effect, "Woah, woah, you're going to shoot me?" > > f. Alhassan deliberately and intentionally - albeit without murderous intent - fired one shot in the direction of Habiyakare. The bullet struck Habiyakare and entered his left chest. The bullet travelled through the fifth and sixth ribs. It travelled through muscle, organs, and his aorta. There was no exit wound.

3. Dr Godfredson conducted a formal Violence Risk assessment of you using the HCR‑20 (Version 3). He assessed you as posing a moderate risk of future violence. As part of that assessment he accepted that you are genuinely remorseful, whereas I am not satisfied of that on the balance of probabilities because of your conduct in relation to the November home invasion and the fictitious criminal gang and your late plea of guilty.[4]
4. Dr Godfredson also factored into the Violence Risk assessment his opinion that you have 'very good prospects for rehabilitation',[5] which is another finding that I baulk at. I consider you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation because of your youth, lack of criminal antecedents and family support but, for the reasons given above, I am not satisfied of genuine remorse, making me less optimistic than Dr Godfredson about your prospects of rehabilitation.
5. Dr Godfredson diagnosed you as having a Cannabis Use Disorder (in sustained remission in a controlled environment).
6. Dr Godfredson also diagnosed you with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder arising from the fatal shooting in the course of the August home invasion. But, as was conceded by your counsel in her written submissions, neither principles 5 or 6 of R v Verdins[6] apply.

1. I consider that the following circumstances should mitigate the sentence to be imposed on you:
   • your youth (although it must be given less weight because of the gravity of your offending);[7]
   • the fact that you have no criminal antecedents;
   • your plea of guilty (albeit a late plea);
   • the delay between charge and sentence and the fact that you had a murder charge having over your head from March 2022 to October 2024;
   • the fact that for a time you experienced harsher than usual prison conditions on remand because of COVID-19;
   • your reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

1. You will be receiving a substantially longer sentence than your two co-offenders. Let me briefly explain why.
2. Your co-offender Mohamed Mohamed, who was also 18 at the time of the offending, pleaded guilty to manslaughter on 24 November 2023. I sentenced him to four years' detention in a Youth Justice Centre.[8] I did not give him credit for the approximately two and a half years of pre-sentence detention.[9] I sentenced him on the basis that he was the driver of the getaway car and did not actually enter the deceased's home. I also placed great weight on the fact that he spent approximately 10 months in near solitary confinement, which expert evidence indicated had a significantly adverse effect on his mental health.
3. Your co-offender Daniel Sisal, who was 19 at the time of the offending, also pleaded guilty to manslaughter on 24 November 2023. I sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment with a minimum term of six years' imprisonment.[10] I sentenced him on the basis that he entered the house. Of course, he was not the shooter. You were. And he pleaded guilty almost a year before you did. He also spent a substantial period on remand in near solitary confinement.

1. The standard sentence for homicide by firearm is 13 years' imprisonment. The standard sentence is 'the sentence for an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness'.[11] Although I have found that yours is an upper range example of the offence of homicide by firearm, I must have regard to the mitigating circumstance referred to above in determining your sentence.
2. Pursuant to s 11A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I must fix a non-parole period that is at least 60% of the head sentence if I impose a sentence under 20 years unless I consider it is in the interests of justice not to do so.
3. I reject the submission that the sentence on the handling charge should be wholly concurrent. You sold a working firearm to someone whom you believed to be the head of a criminal organisation. You did so within a few months of having fatally shot someone. I consider yours to be an upper range example of the offence of handling, notwithstanding that the purchaser, fortunately, was a covert operative who removed the firearm from circulation.
4. Please stand.
5. On the charge of homicide by firearm, I sentence you to 12 years' imprisonment.
6. On the charge of handling stolen property, I sentence you to two years' imprisonment, one year of which will be cumulative.
7. The total effective sentence is 13 years' imprisonment.
8. I direct that you must serve a minimum term of eight years before you are eligible for parole.
9. I declare that you have served 1,128 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
10. But for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 14 years' imprisonment with a minimum term of nine years.
11. I also make the forfeiture and disposal orders sought by the prosecution. They were not opposed.

[1] R v Mohamed [2024] VSC 318; DPP v Sisal [2024] VSC 589.

[2] Although that previous representation was made contemporaneously with a number of false representations (that the deceased had a gun, that you only shot the deceased in the leg, that one of your co-offenders fired the fatal shot), I rely on it because it was an admission against interest.

[3] Report of Dr Godfredson, dated 11 February 2025, [26]-[29].

[4] At [35.1], Dr Godfredson writes: 'Recent Problems with Insight: Over the past six months in custody, Mr Alhassan has demonstrated adequate insight into his offending, recognising the role of peer influence and expressing genuine remorse. This risk factor was absent.' See also [60].

[5] See [37] and [63] of Dr Godfredson's report.

[6] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269. Your counsel submitted that, nonetheless, there should be a sentencing discount for your PTSD but I reject that submission. Either Verdins does or doesn't apply. There is no half way house.

[7] Azzopardi v R [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43, [44].

[8] R v Mohamed [2024] VSC 318.

[9] That is, presentence detention from 30 November 2021 and 7 June 2024.

[10] DPP v Sisal [2024] VSC 589.

[11] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5A(1)(b).