Ghamraoui v R [2009] NSWCCA 111
Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing remarks did not demonstrate that the judge made the alleged error in applying special circumstances to the effective sentence, and the sentences imposed were markedly lenient so that no lesser minimum period of custody was warranted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['multiple Offences' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'cumulated Sentences' 'totality' 'severity Appeal']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of his finding of special circumstances when fixing the non-parole period for cumulated sentences.' 'Whether the Court should formulate general principles for determining non-parole periods where an offender is sentenced for multiple offences.' 'Whether intervention was warranted where the overall minimum term was proportionately greater than the statutory ratio.']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing remarks did not demonstrate that the judge made the alleged error in applying special circumstances to the effective sentence, and the sentences imposed were markedly lenient so that no lesser minimum period of custody was warranted.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment