Application by Chaouki Bou Antoun pursuant to s 78(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 1540

Application by Chaouki Bou Antoun pursuant to s 78(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2013] NSWSC 1540

The application was refused because the sentencing judge did not give primary or determinative significance to the standard non-parole period or engage in an impermissible two stage approach. The judge assessed the objective gravity of the offence, weighed objective and subjective factors, and treated the standard...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S 78(1) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['application for Inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'solicit to Murder' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigating Circumstance']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals and Review'] ['application for Inquiry Into Sentence' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'solicit to Murder' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigating Circumstance']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Sentence Pursuant to S 78(1) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case under s 78(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001." "Whether the applicant's sentencing was infected by Muldrock error because the standard non-parole period was given undue emphasis." 'Whether the sentencing judge engaged in a two stage approach to sentence or instead took into account the full range of objective and subjective factors.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the sentencing judge did not give primary or determinative significance to the standard non-parole period or engage in an impermissible two stage approach. The judge assessed the objective gravity of the offence, weighed objective and subjective factors, and treated the standard non-parole period only as a persuasive benchmark or legislative guidepost. The Court therefore did not entertain any doubt or question as to a mitigating circumstance in the applicant's case.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']