Jomaa v R [2022] NSWCCA 112

Jomaa v R [2022] NSWCCA 112

The sentencing judge erred by failing to give any or sufficient weight to the undercover operative’s encouragement and initiation of the importation scheme when assessing objective seriousness, thereby diminishing the applicant’s culpability to some limited extent. This error warranted appellate intervention. Upon resentencing, and allowing for the mitigating effect of police involvement, the appropriate sentence was a head sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Parties
Applicant: Koder Jomaa; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentence Appeal and Re Sentence After Extension of Time Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Sentencing Principles, Role of Undercover Police, Manifestly Excessive Sentence, Mitigating Factors, Importation of Border Controlled Drugs
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Sentencing Principles Role of Undercover Police Manifestly Excessive Sentence Mitigating Factors Importation of Border Controlled Drugs

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koder Jomaa

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentence Appeal and Re Sentence After Extension of Time Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentence was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the Taouk principles regarding police encouragement/inducement and its mitigatory effect on culpability
  3. 3 Relevance of encouragement of undercover operative to assessment of objective seriousness

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by failing to give any or sufficient weight to the undercover operative’s encouragement and initiation of the importation scheme when assessing objective seriousness, thereby diminishing the applicant’s culpability to some limited extent. This error warranted appellate intervention. Upon resentencing, and allowing for the mitigating effect of police involvement, the appropriate sentence was a head sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • The time for filing of the notice of appeal is extended until 22 June 2021.
  • Leave to appeal is granted.