Chalhoub v R [2021] NSWCCA 69

Chalhoub v R [2021] NSWCCA 69

The sentencing judge did not err in refusing an intensive correction order because the remarks showed that community safety was considered, the assessment required by s 66(2) was undertaken, and the applicant's still evolving insight supported the conclusion that an intensive correction order was not more likely than full-time custody to address his risk of reoffending. Although the sentencing judge erred by relying on facts not agreed in the applicant's proceedings and by misstating the drug quantities, resentencing on the correct factual basis led to the same result: the offences were just below mid-range objective seriousness, imprisonment was required, full-time custody rather than an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['intensive Correction Orders' 'community Safety' 'risk of Reoffending' 'agreed Facts' 'resentencing' 'manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['intensive Correction Orders' 'community Safety' 'risk of Reoffending' 'agreed Facts' 'resentencing' 'manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'form 1 Offences']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to undertake, or failed to explain, the assessment required by s 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) when deciding not to impose an intensive correction order.' "Whether the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant on the wrong factual basis by relying on facts not agreed in the applicant's proceedings and misstating the drug quantities." 'Whether, after error was established, a lesser sentence was warranted on resentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in refusing an intensive correction order because the remarks showed that community safety was considered, the assessment required by s 66(2) was undertaken, and the applicant's still evolving insight supported the conclusion that an intensive correction order was not more likely than full-time custody to address his risk of reoffending. Although the sentencing judge erred by relying on facts not agreed in the applicant's proceedings and by misstating the drug quantities, resentencing on the correct factual basis led to the same result: the offences were just below mid-range objective seriousness, imprisonment was required, full-time custody rather than an...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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