Turkmani v R [2014] NSWCCA 186

Turkmani v R [2014] NSWCCA 186

The sentencing judge did not breach the De Simoni principle. The description of the applicant's destruction of items as designed to 'frustrate' proceedings was properly construed as a restatement of the elements of the s 317 offence and did not attribute an intent beyond that offence. For the s 24A offence, the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentences Imposed by the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['de Simoni Principle' 'tampering With Evidence' 'perverting the Course of Justice' 'possession of Drug Manufacturing Apparatus' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'medical Hardship in Custody']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['de Simoni Principle' 'tampering With Evidence' 'perverting the Course of Justice' 'possession of Drug Manufacturing Apparatus' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'medical Hardship in Custody']

Source-derived case record

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentences Imposed by the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant for the first offence on facts giving rise to the more serious offence of intending to pervert the course of justice, contrary to the De Simoni principle.' 'Whether the sentence imposed for possession of a drug manufacture apparatus was too severe or unreasonable or plainly unjust.' 'Whether the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant for the second offence on facts amounting to involvement in a more serious offence, contrary to the De Simoni principle.' "Whether further medical evidence concerning the applicant's condition and treatment in custody should be admitted and, if admitted, whether it justified a reduction in sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not breach the De Simoni principle. The description of the applicant's destruction of items as designed to 'frustrate' proceedings was properly construed as a restatement of the elements of the s 317 offence and did not attribute an intent beyond that offence. For the s 24A offence, the sentencing judge carefully treated the applicant's conduct as advanced preparation for manufacture, not as manufacture or taking part in manufacture, and the sentence was not unreasonable or unjust given the scale of intended manufacture, the maximum penalty, and the applicant's criminal history. Although the further medical evidence met the threshold for admission because the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']