R v Barakat [2001] NSWCCA 366

R v Barakat [2001] NSWCCA 366

Although leave was granted, the Court was not satisfied that a less severe sentence was warranted in law. The sentencing regime had already been specifically structured to accommodate the applicant's subjective circumstances, including his asserted desire to return to Lebanon, and any further reduction of the non-parole periods for counts 3 and 4 would make the sentence wholly disproportionate to the criminality involved in the offences. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'severity Appeal' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'severity Appeal' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge properly considered the applicant's subjective circumstances when imposing sentence for four counts of break, enter and steal." 'Whether accumulation of sentences and the resulting parole period required a finding of special circumstances or a reduction in the non-parole period.' 'Whether the applicant received insufficient consideration by way of a discount for his pleas of guilty.' 'Whether a less severe sentence was warranted in law under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although leave was granted, the Court was not satisfied that a less severe sentence was warranted in law. The sentencing regime had already been specifically structured to accommodate the applicant's subjective circumstances, including his asserted desire to return to Lebanon, and any further reduction of the non-parole periods for counts 3 and 4 would make the sentence wholly disproportionate to the criminality involved in the offences. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']