ZAMMIT, Jared Mark v R [2010] NSWCCA 29

ZAMMIT, Jared Mark v R [2010] NSWCCA 29

The sentencing judge was entitled to reject the applicant's evidence and find that the applicant knew of Fisher's animosity and participated in an agreed entry by force, but the head sentence of 6 years was excessive having regard to the offence being at the lower end of the mid range, the applicant's youth, limited criminal history, intoxication, prospects of rehabilitation, guilty plea and Fisher's principal role. The appropriate starting sentence was 6.5 years, reduced by 25 per cent, with special circumstances justifying a non-parole period equal to 50 per cent of the total term.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Resentencing After Appeal Allowed
Outcome
The application for leave was granted and the appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break and Enter' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'youth of Offender' 'findings of Fact on Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Break and Enter' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'objective Seriousness' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'youth of Offender' 'findings of Fact on Sentence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'special Circumstances']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Resentencing After Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge wrongly found that Fisher had told the applicant of his animosity towards Ms Saliba or the victim.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give appropriate weight to the applicant's youth." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to reject the applicant's evidence and find that the applicant knew of Fisher's animosity and participated in an agreed entry by force, but the head sentence of 6 years was excessive having regard to the offence being at the lower end of the mid range, the applicant's youth, limited criminal history, intoxication, prospects of rehabilitation, guilty plea and Fisher's principal role. The appropriate starting sentence was 6.5 years, reduced by 25 per cent, with special circumstances justifying a non-parole period equal to 50 per cent of the total term.

Court Disposition

The application for leave was granted and the appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave is granted and the appeal allowed.' 'The sentences in the District Court are quashed and in lieu the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 2½ years and a balance of term of 2½ years.' 'The sentence is to date from 19 June 2008 and the applicant...