Regina v Bayeh [1999] NSWCCA 82

Regina v Bayeh [1999] NSWCCA 82

The applicant did not demonstrate sentencing error. The Judicial Commission statistics did not show that the sentencing discretion miscarried; the testimonials were before the sentencing judge and were not used to increase culpability; the Royal Commission transcript tendered by the applicant was available for legitimate use and no breach of s 17(2) of the Royal Commissions Act 1923 was shown; and no further material was put before the Court to justify additional allowance for assistance to authorities. The offence was serious within its category and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal After Sentence in the District Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
['attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'severity Appeal' 'use of Material Tendered by Applicant' 'assistance to Authorities' 'sentencing Statistics']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing' 'evidence'] ['attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'severity Appeal' 'use of Material Tendered by Applicant' 'assistance to Authorities' 'sentencing Statistics']

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 Severity of Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal After Sentence in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to sentencing statistics issued by the Judicial Commission.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by making use of good character references that were before him but not specifically relied upon by the applicant in sentencing proceedings.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by using transcript of evidence given by the applicant to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service, tendered by the applicant for assistance-to-authorities purposes, when assessing the applicant's background." "Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the applicant's assistance to authorities." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate sentencing error. The Judicial Commission statistics did not show that the sentencing discretion miscarried; the testimonials were before the sentencing judge and were not used to increase culpability; the Royal Commission transcript tendered by the applicant was available for legitimate use and no breach of s 17(2) of the Royal Commissions Act 1923 was shown; and no further material was put before the Court to justify additional allowance for assistance to authorities. The offence was serious within its category and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed.

Orders

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