Majid v R [2010] NSWCCA 121

Majid v R [2010] NSWCCA 121

The sentencing judge erred only by failing to comply with s.44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in calculating the head sentence for the second count; a balance of term of three years and four months should have been fixed instead of four years. The other grounds relating to insufficient weight of subjective circumstances or manifest excess were not established.

Parties
Applicant: Darush Majid; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted in part; sentence for Count 2 varied; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Detain for Advantage, Application of Standard Non Parole Period, Protective Custody, Manifestly Excessive Sentence, Non Compliance With S.44 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Law Sentencing Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Detain for Advantage Application of Standard Non Parole Period Protective Custody Manifestly Excessive Sentence Non Compliance With S.44 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darush Majid

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to comply with s.44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in relation to Count 2
  2. 2 Whether insufficient weight was given to the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder
  3. 3 Whether insufficient weight was given to the applicant's expression of contrition and remorse

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred only by failing to comply with s.44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in calculating the head sentence for the second count; a balance of term of three years and four months should have been fixed instead of four years. The other grounds relating to insufficient weight of subjective circumstances or manifest excess were not established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted in part; sentence for Count 2 varied; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
  • Sentence of imprisonment on the second count quashed and replaced with a non-parole period of 10 years (13 October 2008 - 12 October 2018) and a balance of term of three years and four months (13 October 2018 - 12 February 2022).