Jehad Jodeh v R [2011] NSWCCA 194

Jehad Jodeh v R [2011] NSWCCA 194

While each individual sentence was appropriate, the accumulated effect of the sentences was manifestly excessive and had a crushing effect inconsistent with the totality principle, given the applicant's youth, prior good character, and the impact of his injuries and psychological state. The appeal was therefore allowed and the sentences adjusted accordingly.

Parties
Applicant: Jehad Jodeh; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appellate
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences at first instance quashed; new sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm, Severity of Sentence, Totality Principle, Parity, Extra Curial Punishment
Criminal Law Armed Robbery Maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm Severity of Sentence Totality Principle Parity Extra Curial Punishment

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jehad Jodeh

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appellate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to drug addiction caused by a motorbike accident in assessing moral culpability
  2. 2 Whether there was unjustified disparity between the applicant's sentence and the co-offender's sentence (parity)
  3. 3 Whether extra-curial punishment due to reduced civil claim should be taken into account

Ratio Decidendi

While each individual sentence was appropriate, the accumulated effect of the sentences was manifestly excessive and had a crushing effect inconsistent with the totality principle, given the applicant's youth, prior good character, and the impact of his injuries and psychological state. The appeal was therefore allowed and the sentences adjusted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences at first instance quashed; new sentences imposed.

Orders

  • On count 1: fixed term imprisonment of 4 years (24 September 2007 - 23 September 2011)
  • On count 2: fixed term imprisonment of 4.5 years (24 September 2008 - 23 March 2013)