R v Mohamad Issam HAMIED [2007] NSWCCA 151

R v Mohamad Issam HAMIED [2007] NSWCCA 151

Although the sentence was lenient, no specific sentencing error was established and the sentence was not definitely outside the available range. The sentencing judge had regard to the Henry guideline and the aggravating features, was entitled to treat the respondent's role as minor compared with co-offenders but essential, did not double count depressive illness, allowed a guilty plea discount within discretion, and was entitled to find special circumstances supporting the non-parole period. The respondent's age, role, lack of relevant convictions, rehabilitation prospects, family support and long-standing depressive illness justified dismissal of the Crown appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'guideline Judgment' 'assault With Intent to Rob Whilst Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'general Deterrence' 'mental Illness in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'guideline Judgment' 'assault With Intent to Rob Whilst Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'general Deterrence' 'mental Illness 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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider and apply the guideline judgment in R v Henry & Ors. (1999) 46 NSWLR 346.' 'Whether there was double counting in the finding of special circumstances.' "Whether the discount for the respondent's late plea of guilty was excessive." "Whether excessive weight was attributed to the respondent's medical condition." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to specific and general deterrence.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentence was lenient, no specific sentencing error was established and the sentence was not definitely outside the available range. The sentencing judge had regard to the Henry guideline and the aggravating features, was entitled to treat the respondent's role as minor compared with co-offenders but essential, did not double count depressive illness, allowed a guilty plea discount within discretion, and was entitled to find special circumstances supporting the non-parole period. The respondent's age, role, lack of relevant convictions, rehabilitation prospects, family support and long-standing depressive illness justified dismissal of the Crown appeal.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal dismissed']