R v Hejazi [2003] NSWCCA 383

R v Hejazi [2003] NSWCCA 383

The appeal was dismissed because the differences between the applicant and the co-offender, including criminal history, offences taken into account, circumstances of the offences, and timing of guilty pleas, justified the differences in sentence. Appellate intervention was not warranted as the sentences were not manifestly disproportionate or based on error.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Michael Mohammed Hejazi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Severity of Sentence, Drug Offences, Disparity in Sentencing
Criminal Law Appeal Against Severity of Sentence Drug Offences Disparity 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Michael Mohammed Hejazi

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was disproportionate compared to the sentence imposed on a co-offender
  2. 2 Whether disparity in sentence justifies appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the differences between the applicant and the co-offender, including criminal history, offences taken into account, circumstances of the offences, and timing of guilty pleas, justified the differences in sentence. Appellate intervention was not warranted as the sentences were not manifestly disproportionate or based on error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed