Regina v El-Farra [2003] NSWCCA 140

Regina v El-Farra [2003] NSWCCA 140

The sentencing judge erred by backdating the sentences to 11 September 2001 and by making the sentence for taking and driving a conveyance wholly concurrent with the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The sentences failed to reflect the seriousness of the offences, the fact that they were committed while the respondent was on parole, and the discrete features of the two offences which required accumulation at least in part. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was re-sentenced subject to the restraints applicable on a Crown appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence on the Ground of Alleged Inadequacy / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences set aside; respondent re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['manifest Inadequacy' 'backdating Sentences' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'breach of Parole' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'taking and Driving a Conveyance Without Consent']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Inadequacy' 'backdating Sentences' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'breach of Parole' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'taking and Driving a Conveyance Without Consent']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence on the Ground of Alleged Inadequacy / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by backdating the sentences on counts 2 and 3 to commence on 11 September 2001.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing the sentence for count 3 to be served entirely concurrently with the sentence for count 2.' 'Whether the sentences imposed adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences and the aggravating circumstance that they were committed while the respondent was on parole.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by backdating the sentences to 11 September 2001 and by making the sentence for taking and driving a conveyance wholly concurrent with the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The sentences failed to reflect the seriousness of the offences, the fact that they were committed while the respondent was on parole, and the discrete features of the two offences which required accumulation at least in part. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was re-sentenced subject to the restraints applicable on a Crown appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences set aside; respondent re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The sentences imposed by his Honour be set aside.' 'The finding of special circumstances by his Honour should stand.' 'On count 3, taking and driving a conveyance without consent, the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for nine months to commence on 6 December 2002 and to expire on 5...