Baydoun v R [2024] NSWCCA 65

Baydoun v R [2024] NSWCCA 65

The sentencing discretion miscarried due to failure to make findings as to objective seriousness and provide adequate reasons for count 3; failure to account for pre-sentence custody; and incorrect application of sentencing discounts to State offences. However, upon re-exercise, no lesser sentence is warranted, and the District Court's sentence is confirmed subject to variation of the commencement date to allow for pre-sentence custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences confirmed but varied as to commencement date for State offences to account for pre-sentence custody.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'fraud Related Offences' 'sentencing Principles' 'objective Seriousness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'sentencing Discounts' 'pre Sentence Custody']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'fraud Related Offences' 'sentencing Principles' 'objective Seriousness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'sentencing Discounts' 'pre Sentence Custody']

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

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in considering objective seriousness for count 3' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the indicative sentence for count 3' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly account for pre-sentence custody' 'Whether the sentencing judge applied an erroneous discount for guilty pleas to State offences']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing discretion miscarried due to failure to make findings as to objective seriousness and provide adequate reasons for count 3; failure to account for pre-sentence custody; and incorrect application of sentencing discounts to State offences. However, upon re-exercise, no lesser sentence is warranted, and the District Court's sentence is confirmed subject to variation of the commencement date to allow for pre-sentence custody.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentences confirmed but varied as to commencement date for State offences to account for pre-sentence custody.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Allow the appeal' 'Aggregate sentences passed in the District Court are confirmed' 'Sentence for the State offences (counts 4-9) is directed to commence on 24 February 2024' 'Non-parole period expires on 23 February 2025' 'Sentence expires on 23 May 2026']