Abdul v R [2019] NSWCCA 18

Abdul v R [2019] NSWCCA 18

The sentencing judge did not err because the applicant's offending was not impulsive, spontaneous or the product of immaturity; he played a senior controlling and entrepreneurial role in a serious drug distribution organisation and was clearly operating as an adult. The sentencing judge expressly considered the applicant's youth, prospects of rehabilitation and special circumstances, and no error of discretion was shown in the adjustment to the non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
Legal Topics
['drug Supply Offences' 'knowingly Directing Activities of a Criminal Group' 'youth as a Sentencing Factor' 'rehabilitation' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['drug Supply Offences' 'knowingly Directing Activities of a Criminal Group' 'youth as a Sentencing Factor' 'rehabilitation' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in not taking the applicant's youth into account when determining an appropriate sentence." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in not having regard to the importance of rehabilitation when setting the head sentence and non-parole period.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the adjustment for special circumstances to the statutory non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err because the applicant's offending was not impulsive, spontaneous or the product of immaturity; he played a senior controlling and entrepreneurial role in a serious drug distribution organisation and was clearly operating as an adult. The sentencing judge expressly considered the applicant's youth, prospects of rehabilitation and special circumstances, and no error of discretion was shown in the adjustment to the non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.']