Zarakas v R [2013] NSWCCA 144

Zarakas v R [2013] NSWCCA 144

The sentencing remarks did not disclose an impermissible two-stage process: the judge considered subjective and objective features, evaluated objective seriousness, applied a plea discount, found special circumstances, and imposed a sentence reflecting all relevant matters. Any difference between the applicant's sentence and Mr Kafizas' sentence was justified by the applicant's greater number of firearm sales, larger Form 1 schedule, higher role in the criminal hierarchy, criminal record including a prohibited weapon offence, and Mr Kafizas' older age and lack of convictions. No lesser sentence was warranted and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal out of time granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'muldrock V the Queen' 'parity and Co Offender Disparity' 'firearms Offences' 'leave to Appeal Out of Time']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'muldrock V the Queen' 'parity and Co Offender Disparity' 'firearms Offences' 'leave to Appeal Out of Time']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing objective seriousness and applying the standard non-parole period contrary to Muldrock v The Queen.' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance arising from disparity between his sentence and the sentence imposed on co-offender Mr Kafizas.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing remarks did not disclose an impermissible two-stage process: the judge considered subjective and objective features, evaluated objective seriousness, applied a plea discount, found special circumstances, and imposed a sentence reflecting all relevant matters. Any difference between the applicant's sentence and Mr Kafizas' sentence was justified by the applicant's greater number of firearm sales, larger Form 1 schedule, higher role in the criminal hierarchy, criminal record including a prohibited weapon offence, and Mr Kafizas' older age and lack of convictions. No lesser sentence was warranted and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal out of time granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal out of time granted.' 'Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']