Mahdi Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178

Mahdi Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show reasonable prospects of establishing error in the imposition of the fine. Section 16C required consideration of financial circumstances but did not make capacity to pay decisive and did not preclude a fine where those circumstances could not be ascertained. The sentencing judge raised the possibility of a fine, invited submissions, had limited material before him, referred to evidence of business interests, travel and family financial responsibilities, and imposed the fine by reference to general deterrence and the appropriateness of a financial penalty for crime committed for financial gain. The applicant did not rely on procedural...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['importing a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'fine for Federal Offence' 'financial Circumstances of Offender' 'general Deterrence' 'financial Gain']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['importing a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'fine for Federal Offence' 'financial Circumstances of Offender' 'general Deterrence' 'financial Gain']

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 Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred in imposing a fine in the absence of reliable evidence that the applicant had the means to pay the fine.' 'Whether the District Court erred in imposing a fine in the absence of evidence that the applicant had retained a profit from his offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge complied with s 16C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) before imposing a fine.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show reasonable prospects of establishing error in the imposition of the fine. Section 16C required consideration of financial circumstances but did not make capacity to pay decisive and did not preclude a fine where those circumstances could not be ascertained. The sentencing judge raised the possibility of a fine, invited submissions, had limited material before him, referred to evidence of business interests, travel and family financial responsibilities, and imposed the fine by reference to general deterrence and the appropriateness of a financial penalty for crime committed for financial gain. The applicant did not rely on procedural...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.']