R v NAJEM [2008] NSWCCA 32

R v NAJEM [2008] NSWCCA 32

The sentences for counts 1 and 2 were manifestly inadequate. The conspiracy involved premeditated, paid violence intended to cause grievous bodily harm, with the Respondent knowingly participating as an armed lookout and being on conditional liberty; the proper starting point for that offence should not have been less than 10 years. The pistol offence was substantially more serious than mid-range because the Respondent deliberately possessed a loaded prohibited pistol at the scene of an intended serious violent crime, and the proper starting point should not have been less than 7 years. Although parity with co-offenders and the discretion on Crown appeals required moderation, the extent...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentences on counts 1 and 2 quashed; Respondent resentenced on those counts.
Legal Topics
['manifest Inadequacy' 'conspiracy to Maliciously Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'possession of a Prohibited Pistol' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'conditional Liberty' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'crown Appeal Discretion']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifest Inadequacy' 'conspiracy to Maliciously Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'possession of a Prohibited Pistol' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'conditional Liberty' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'crown Appeal Discretion']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for conspiracy to maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm with intent and possession of a prohibited pistol were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge understated the objective seriousness of the conspiracy and pistol offences.' 'Whether subjective circumstances, special circumstances, parity with co-offenders and the discretion applicable to Crown appeals should limit appellate intervention or the sentences imposed on resentencing.' 'Whether any error was shown in not accumulating the sentence for resisting police.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences for counts 1 and 2 were manifestly inadequate. The conspiracy involved premeditated, paid violence intended to cause grievous bodily harm, with the Respondent knowingly participating as an armed lookout and being on conditional liberty; the proper starting point for that offence should not have been less than 10 years. The pistol offence was substantially more serious than mid-range because the Respondent deliberately possessed a loaded prohibited pistol at the scene of an intended serious violent crime, and the proper starting point should not have been less than 7 years. Although parity with co-offenders and the discretion on Crown appeals required moderation, the extent...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentences on counts 1 and 2 quashed; Respondent resentenced on those counts.

Orders

  • ['Allow the Crown appeal.' 'Quash the sentences imposed by Sweeney DCJ in respect of counts 1 and 2.' 'In respect of count 1, sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 7 September 2006, together with a further period of 3 years commencing on 7 September 2010.' 'In...