Youssef v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 285

Youssef v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 285

The sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant was 'substantially involved in supply' and thereby imposed a requirement to find exceptional circumstances before considering non-custodial options; given it was not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was a trafficker in the sense understood in Clark, the original sentence was vitiated by error. The appropriate sentence, having regard to all circumstances, was a reduced custodial term with immediate release on parole conditions.

Parties
Applicant: Milad Youssef; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal; Sentence Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence at first instance quashed; applicant sentenced to term of imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 months, balance of 5 months; parole order made.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Possession of Prohibited Drug for Supply, Sentencing Discretion, General Deterrence, Assessment of Involvement in Drug Supply
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Possession of Prohibited Drug for Supply Sentencing Discretion General Deterrence Assessment of Involvement in Drug Supply

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milad Youssef

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal; Sentence Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred in determining that the applicant was substantially involved in supply
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to make a finding that the applicant was unlikely to reoffend
  3. 3 Whether sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's subjective features

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant was 'substantially involved in supply' and thereby imposed a requirement to find exceptional circumstances before considering non-custodial options; given it was not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was a trafficker in the sense understood in Clark, the original sentence was vitiated by error. The appropriate sentence, having regard to all circumstances, was a reduced custodial term with immediate release on parole conditions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence at first instance quashed; applicant sentenced to term of imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 months, balance of 5 months; parole order made.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.