Younan v R [2012] NSWCCA 155

Younan v R [2012] NSWCCA 155

The sentencing judge did not place undue weight on general deterrence, because her Honour merely recognised the applicable High Court authority on sentencing for Commonwealth drug offences. The applicant maintained that he believed he was importing diamonds, protested his innocence after conviction, and never acknowledged responsibility or remorse for importing heroin, leaving no scope for a finding of remorse or contrition. The individual sentences were at the very bottom of the relevant range and no error in accumulation was shown, so the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['importing a Marketable Quantity of Heroin' 'ellis Discount' 'remorse and Contrition' 'general Deterrence' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['importing a Marketable Quantity of Heroin' 'ellis Discount' 'remorse and Contrition' 'general Deterrence' 'manifest Excess']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in dealing with the application of the Ellis discount.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to find that the applicant was remorseful.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not place undue weight on general deterrence, because her Honour merely recognised the applicable High Court authority on sentencing for Commonwealth drug offences. The applicant maintained that he believed he was importing diamonds, protested his innocence after conviction, and never acknowledged responsibility or remorse for importing heroin, leaving no scope for a finding of remorse or contrition. The individual sentences were at the very bottom of the relevant range and no error in accumulation was shown, so the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal allowed' 'Appeal dismissed']