Aboud v R [2017] NSWCCA 140

Aboud v R [2017] NSWCCA 140

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err in taking delay into account, setting the non-parole period, or considering the applicant's level of co-operation. The arguments advanced did not demonstrate a miscarriage of discretion nor any error requiring appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Severity of Sentence' 'sentence for Using Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Offend' 'sentence for Grooming a Child for Sex' 'delay in Prosecution' 'non Parole Period Ratios' 'co Operation With Authorities in Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Severity of Sentence' 'sentence for Using Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Offend' 'sentence for Grooming a Child for Sex' 'delay in Prosecution' 'non Parole Period Ratios' 'co Operation With Authorities in Sentencing']

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

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentencing judge erred in approach to the delay in prosecuting the applicant' 'Whether sentencing judge erred in approach to setting the non-parole period' 'Whether a non-parole period of 75 percent of total sentence can be regarded as punitive' 'Whether such a ratio was open to the sentencing judge' 'Whether sentencing judge failed to take account of the extent to which the applicant assisted and co-operated with authorities']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err in taking delay into account, setting the non-parole period, or considering the applicant's level of co-operation. The arguments advanced did not demonstrate a miscarriage of discretion nor any error requiring appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Dismiss the appeal']