Al Am Ali v R [2021] NSWCCA 281

Al Am Ali v R [2021] NSWCCA 281

The sentencing judge erred by failing to engage with the applicant's submission that consideration should be given to an Intensive Correction Order, which meant the requirements of s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 were not considered. However, on resentencing, the applicant's significant role in...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['possessing Imported Tobacco With Intent to Defraud the Revenue' 'intensive Correction Order' 'commonwealth Sentencing' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'no Lesser Sentence Warranted']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['possessing Imported Tobacco With Intent to Defraud the Revenue' 'intensive Correction Order' 'commonwealth Sentencing' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'no Lesser Sentence Warranted']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the requirements of s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when imposing a sentence of full-time imprisonment.' "Whether, on resentencing, the applicant's sentence of imprisonment should be served in the community by way of an Intensive Correction Order." 'Whether no lesser sentence was warranted in law under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by failing to engage with the applicant's submission that consideration should be given to an Intensive Correction Order, which meant the requirements of s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 were not considered. However, on resentencing, the applicant's significant role in organised criminal activity involving a large quantity of smuggled tobacco and substantial duty and GST evasion made imprisonment appropriate, and an Intensive Correction Order was not appropriate because the applicant was due to be released on recognizance in less than three months, any ICO would be limited in duration, and it would be more severe than the sentence already...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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