//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2004] NSWSC 981
plaintiff. For Salam Taouk’s murder, Simon Taouk was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment, taken to have commenced on 8 February 2004, with a 15-year non-parole period. For Tony Taouk’s murder, he was...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
After a jury found Simon Taouk guilty of murdering his wife and her brother, Barr J assessed the circumstances of the shootings and the offender's personal circumstances. The judge rejected the offender's account that Tony Taouk had brought and fired the gun. The court imposed separate prison sentences, partly accumulated, so that both non-parole periods ended on 7 February 2019. The judgment is a sentencing decision and does not cite other cases or set out a general legal test.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,009 words · generated 29/09/2026
In Regina v Simon Taouk [2004] NSWSC 981, Barr J sentenced Simon Taouk after a jury found him guilty of murdering his wife, Salam Taouk, and her brother, Tony Taouk. The sentencing judgment records the facts as the judge found them and explains the sentences imposed on 22 October 2004.
The Taouk family lived together in a house in Strathfield. On the night of 28 September 2002, Salam and two of her daughters went out to visit relatives and returned home shortly after 2 am. Tony Taouk and one of the couple’s sons arrived at about the same time. The offender was at home and became angry when Salam and the daughters returned. He paced, yelled and called them “sneaky” and “liars”, then went outside into the back yard. Family members subsequently went to their rooms (paras [1]–[4]).
Not long afterwards, six shots were fired from a revolver near the upstairs bedrooms. One bullet struck Salam in the back and another struck Tony in the chest. Both died. The other shots entered bedrooms, including those of Tony and Helen. The judge accepted that the bullets which struck the two deceased were fired by the offender and considered it reasonable to conclude that he had fired the other shots in the same rapid sequence (paras [5]–[7]).
The offender left the house and attended Burwood Police Station at 3:15 am. At the counter, he said he wanted to report a disturbance and that he had “just shot someone”. He told the officer that he had argued with his brother, taken a gun from him and fired shots. Later, in an interview with an interpreter, he gave a different account. He said Tony had brought a gun, struck and kicked him, and was the only person firing. The judge found that the counter account came closest to the truth and that the later account was substantially untruthful and intended to exculpate the offender (paras [11]–[20], [23]).
The judge found that the offender disposed of the gun after leaving the house. He rejected the suggestion that Tony had brought it, noting the absence of evidence that Tony possessed a gun, the offender’s conduct in leaving, and the lack of weight he gave to the offender’s account. The judge concluded that the gun was the offender’s, although its source was not established (paras [18]–[27]).
The court imposed a 16-year sentence for Salam’s murder and an 18-year sentence for Tony’s murder. The first sentence was taken to have commenced on 8 February 2004. The second commenced on 8 February 2008. Each non-parole period expired on 7 February 2019, making that the stated parole eligibility date (para [44]).
The judgment’s reasoning is an individual sentencing assessment, not an appellate analysis of a disputed legal rule. It cites no legislation or earlier cases and does not set out a general test. The court instead explains how it evaluated the events, the offender’s circumstances and the way the two sentences should relate to each other.
On the evidence about the shootings, the judge found that the offender fired the shots and rejected his alternative account about Tony. The judge considered the offender’s statements to police, the absence of evidence that Tony had possessed a gun, and the offender’s conduct after the shooting, including leaving the house and disposing of the weapon. The judgment also discusses forensic evidence, including gunshot residue and the position of the gun when Tony was shot. The judge treated parts of that evidence as equivocal rather than giving them a more definite meaning than the evidence allowed (paras [19]–[27]).
The judge found no direct evidence explaining why the offender shot the deceased. He considered that the offender may have mistakenly believed Salam and Tony had been out together, and that his anger may have continued after he returned inside. But he did not treat that as an explanation that justified the killings: he said none of the possible reasons inferred from the evidence would explain why the offender killed two people. He also noted that the marriage had, by all accounts, been happy, and that there was no evidence of bad blood between the offender and Tony (paras [28]–[32]).
The judge assessed intent from the circumstances. Tony was shot at very close quarters, and the judge considered the trajectories of the other bullets consistent with a struggle. The jury’s verdicts established that the shootings were not accidental. The judge concluded that the shooting of Tony at close range demonstrated an intent no less than to kill. As to Salam, he considered the close proximity shown by gunshot residue and the location of the wound, while acknowledging that the bullet might have been intended for Tony and misdirected during the struggle (para [33]).
The personal factors were also addressed. The judge did not treat the offender’s old firearms conviction or the unrelated drug conviction as aggravating features. He noted the offender’s lack of remorse regarding Tony’s murder, while accepting that he grieved for Salam. He also considered the offender’s serious cardiovascular problems and said he would serve the sentence harder because of his poor health. Strong family support and the absence of a demonstrated risk of re-offending were noted as well (paras [34]–[40]).
The structure of the sentences reflected the judge’s view that two deaths called for an effective sentence longer than would have been imposed if only one person had died, but that both murders arose from one bout of criminal conduct. He therefore ordered that the sentences be largely concurrent rather than wholly consecutive. In practice, the second term commenced four years after the first, while both non-parole periods ended on the same date (paras [36], [44]).
This judgment does not describe a change in the law. It is a sentencing decision in a particular case, and the text contains no statutory provisions, cited cases, or express statements that a legal rule was being altered, clarified or applied as binding precedent. It therefore does not provide a source-grounded account of the state of sentencing law before or after 2004.
What can be identified from the judgment is the approach Barr J took in this case. The judge considered the circumstances of the murders, the offender’s personal circumstances and the relationship between sentences for two murders arising from one bout of conduct. He then fixed prison terms, commencement dates and non-parole periods (paras [33]–[44]). Those are the contents of the decision, not a basis in this text for attributing a wider legal rule to it.
The judgment’s statement that sentences should be largely concurrent while producing a longer effective sentence is expressly tied to the circumstances before the court: two deaths, one bout of criminal conduct, and offences that were not premeditated (para [36]). The decision alone does not establish how a different court would sentence other multiple-offence cases, nor does it identify the legal principles or statutory framework that may govern such cases.
At paragraph [19], the judge concluded that the offender had disposed of the gun. The reasoning relied on the timing and circumstances of his departure, the likely arrival of police, and the fact that he was alone on the way to the station. In plain English, the judge inferred that the offender left the house to get rid of the weapon, rather than because that was the simplest way to report the incident.
At paragraph [23], the judge described the account given through an interpreter as making “no real attempt to give a truthful account”. The judge’s point was that the offender appeared to offer an explanation designed to fit facts he believed police would discover, while maintaining his innocence.
At paragraph [33], the judge said that the close-range shooting of Tony demonstrated “an intent no less than to kill”. In plain English, the judge considered the circumstances of that shooting inconsistent with an intention merely to injure. The same paragraph records a qualification concerning Salam: her bullet might have been aimed at Tony and misdirected during the struggle.
At paragraph [36], the judge explained the sentence structure: there were two deaths, but only one bout of criminal conduct. The effective sentence would therefore be longer than if one person had died, while the separate sentences would be largely concurrent. This describes the judge’s reasoning in Taouk’s case, not a universal formula.
At paragraph [39], the judge said that the offender was not a well man and would serve the sentence harder for that reason. In plain English, the judge treated the offender’s health as a personal circumstance that affected the assessment of the sentence.
Finally, paragraph [44] sets out the orders. The sentence for Salam’s murder was 16 years, deemed to start on 8 February 2004, with a 15-year non-parole period. The sentence for Tony’s murder was 18 years, starting on 8 February 2008, with an 11-year non-parole period. Both non-parole periods ended on 7 February 2019.
The judgment addresses a narrow factual setting: sentencing after a jury conviction for two murders committed in a single, rapid episode involving a firearm, in a family home. The judge found that the shootings were not premeditated, that the offender acted in an upwelling of anger, and that the two deaths arose from one bout of criminal conduct (paras [5]–[7], [29]–[36]).
Features the court considered included close-range shots, evidence of a struggle, shots entering other bedrooms, the offender’s statements to police, the missing gun and the offender’s conduct after leaving the house. It also considered the offender’s health, record, family support, remorse and risk of re-offending (paras [18]–[27], [33]–[40]).
Those features help describe the case the court decided. The text does not say that any one of them, alone or together, automatically triggers a particular sentence or sentencing approach in another case. Nor does it define a threshold for when multiple sentences should be concurrent or cumulative. Its statement about partial accumulation is tied to the judge’s assessment of these offences and these circumstances (para [36]).
The material provided contains only the Taouk sentencing judgment. It identifies no later decisions citing, applying, distinguishing, approving or questioning it. Accordingly, its treatment by later courts cannot be established from this source.
The judgment itself cites no earlier authorities, so it also does not provide a chain of precedent to trace. The sentencing outcome and the explanation at paragraph [36] can be reported as what Barr J decided, but this source alone cannot establish whether later courts adopted that reasoning as a general approach, treated it as fact-specific, or relied on some other authority.
Several matters are left unresolved in the judgment’s text. The judge said the offender’s motive could not be established beyond its connection with anger about something (para [32]). The court did not determine precisely where the gun came from, stating that it may have come from the garage ceiling but that its source was of no consequence to the sentencing assessment (para [27]).
The judge also acknowledged limits in the forensic evidence. The gunshot residue on Tony’s clothing was equivocal because the evidence did not establish its precise location. Residue on Salam’s hands could have come from the gun’s discharge or from touching the weapon (paras [22], [25]). The judgment did not resolve every possible detail of the struggle or the intended target of the bullet that struck Salam (para [33]).
At the legal level, the decision does not set out a statutory framework, a general sentencing test, or authority governing concurrency, accumulation or non-parole periods. The judgment establishes the orders made and the case-specific reasons stated by Barr J. Any broader account of the governing law, or of subsequent judicial treatment, would require sources beyond the judgment provided here.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
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
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.
25 Gunshot residue was found on samples taken from the waistband and pockets of jeans taken from the body of Tony Taouk. It was submitted that that evidence supported the offender's account that Tony Taouk had brought the gun to the fight. He could, it was argued, have had the gun tucked into the waistband of his jeans. I do not think that the evidence supports the offender's account. It is equivocal because the evidence does not enable one to say precisely where the residue was found. It could have been inside either pocket or on the inside or the outside of the waistband. If the residue was in the pockets it could have got there from his hands. Residue on the outside of the waistband could be explained by direct deposition from the firing of the gun or from coming into contact with the gun or with the hands of either Tony Taouk or the offender. Both had a substantial amount of gunshot residue on their hands.
26 A number of people saw Tony Taouk on that night. Maroun was in his presence for some hours. Nobody noticed a gun. There is no evidence that he possessed a gun. Given that the offender's account to the police was substantially untruthful and intended to exculpate him, I give no weight to his assertion that Tony Taouk produced the gun. 27 The offender's only reason for leaving the house was to dispose of the gun. If, as he told police, it was Tony Taouk's, produced by Tony Taouk, the offender would have had no reason to get rid of it. I am satisfied that the gun was the offender's. It may have come from the garage ceiling, though whether it did is really of no consequence. The offender got it from somewhere.
28 There is no direct evidence why the offender shot the deceased. I reject his version, the effect of which was that Tony Taouk had interrupted a peaceable conversation between the offender and Salam Taouk, said provocative things, produced a gun and that the fight had followed. 29 I am satisfied that when the two parties arrived home the offender mistakenly believed that Salam Taouk and Tony Taouk had been out together. That may have been the reason for the anger he displayed on their arrival. He obviously re-entered the house not long after he had stormed out, and that was presumably after the others had retired to their rooms. I think it probable that he, too, went to the first floor and continued to vent his anger in a manner that led to the deaths. 30 According to the evidence of Helen Taouk, the reason for the offender's anger was that he appeared to believe that the party was late getting home. Whatever the reason or reasons that might be inferred from the evidence, none would explain why the offender killed two people. As to the killing of Salam Taouk, the marriage was by all accounts a happy one.
31 It appears that Tony Taouk was a resident and a citizen of Lebanon. His wife and children resided there. However, he had previously spent a period of several years in Australia and this was his second period of residence here. He was intending, I think, to obtain rights to reside here permanently. The offender's family regarded him as one of the local family, I think. There was no evidence of bad blood between Tony Taouk and the offender. On the contrary, the offender willingly helped him out with work and permitted him to stay at the family house. 32 The evidence permits nothing to be said about the offender's motive except that it was related to his anger about something.
33 The manner in which the gun was held close against Tony Taouk's chest as the bullet was fired shows that he and the offender were at very close quarters. That and the trajectories of the four bullets which did not find their target show that there must have been a struggle. The verdicts of the jury show that the shootings were not accidental. The shooting of Tony Taouk at such close quarters demonstrates an intent no less than to kill. The presence of gunshot residue on the back and the palms of both hands of Salam Taouk shows that she was close to the gun when it was fired. That does not necessarily mean the firing of the shot that killed her, of course. She was shot in the back below the right shoulder. Since she was at such close quarters the intent must have been to kill her or, if the bullet which hit her was intended for Tony Taouk and was misdirected in the struggle, to kill him. 34 The offender was born on 13 June 1947. He came to Australia in 1970 and he and Salam Taouk married soon afterwards. He has always been engaged in the building industry. In December 1976 he was convicted and fined for discharging a firearm. In May 1994 he was convicted of supplying not less than the commercial quantity of heroin and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment to be served by way of periodic detention. 35 The offender's record does not help him, but I do not think that I should regard it as an aggravating feature. The firearms offence is an old one and the drug offence was unrelated to the events giving rise to the present convictions. 36 The offences cannot be regarded as having been premeditated. They were carried out in an upwelling of anger which manifested itself only a short time before the several members of his family arrived home. There were two deaths but only one bout of criminal conduct. Accordingly, the effective sentence will be longer than it would have been if only one person had died, but the sentences will be largely concurrent. 37 The offender has expressed no remorse and there is no suggestion that he is sorry of the murder of Tony Taouk. His counsel was permitted to say from the bar table that he grieves for the loss of his wife, and I accept that that is so and that he is sorry to that extent. 38 The offender is in poor health. He is overweight and a smoker and suffers from cardiovascular disease. He has suffered from myocardial infarctions which have resulted in repeated damage to the heart muscle. A stent catheter was inserted early in 2002. In March 2004 he was admitted to hospital, having been found unconscious at home. His blood pressure was very high and he was diagnosed with hypertensive encephalopathy and aspiration pneumonia. His general practitioner, Dr Latif, considers that since the two attacks which put the offender in hospital were two years apart and the last was only six months ago, a third attack is possible over the next two years. The offender needs tight control of risk factors if he is to survive such a possible attack. He needs to lose a lot of weight, stop smoking and lower his blood fat level. His medical advisers have prescribed the drugs that he should take. 39 To an extent these are matters which he can control himself, given a proper regime of drugs, diet and exercise, and to the same extent his future health is in his own hands. However, whatever the reasons for it, he is not a well man and will serve his sentence harder for that reason. I take that into account. 40 The offender has strong family support. His sons and daughters attended at the trial, not only because the Crown called them to give evidence but to show their concern for him. I feel confident that they will do everything they can to support him. There is no demonstrated risk of re-offending. 41 The Court has received a victim impact statement from Mrs May Taouk, the widow of Tony Taouk. It extends its sympathy to Mrs Taouk and to all those persons whose lives have been touched by the murders of Tony Taouk and Salam Taouk. 42 The offender was arrested on 29 September 2002 and was in custody for 131 days before he was released to bail. I revoked that bail on 18 June 2004. I shall order the sentences to commence on a day which will take those matters into account. 43 The illness of the offender and the partial accumulation of sentences combine to produce the need for an extended period of time on parole. I shall provide for that need in the combined effect of the sentences. 44 Simon Taouk, for the murder of Salam Taouk you are sentenced to imprisonment for sixteen years. Your sentence will be taken to have commenced on 8 February 2004 and will expire on 7 February 2020. I fix a non-parole period of fifteen years, which will expire on 7 February 2019. For the murder of Tony Taouk you are sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years. Your sentence will commence on 8 February 2008 and will expire on 7 February 2026. I fix a non-parole period of eleven years which will expire on 7 February 2019. You will become eligible to be released to parole on that day.
Last Modified: 10/25/2004 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Regina
Simon TAOUK
For Salam Taouk’s murder, Simon Taouk was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment, taken to have commenced on 8 February 2004, with a 15-year non-parole period. For Tony Taouk’s murder, he was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment commencing on 8 February 2008, with an 11-year non-parole period. He became eligible for parole on 7 February 2019.