Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211

Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211

The sentencing judge considered the relevant statutory and common law requirements, including community safety, and adequately addressed the submissions regarding an intensive correction order. The decision not to order an ICO was justified by the seriousness of the offending and the purposes of deterrence. There was no error established in reasons or process, nor unjustifiable disparity compared to co-offenders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted on grounds (1) and (2); refused with respect to ground (3); appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'intensive Correction Orders' 'federal Offences' 'community Safety' 'disparity in Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'intensive Correction Orders' 'federal Offences' 'community Safety' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the requirements of s 66 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) when deciding whether to make an intensive correction order (ICO)' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not ordering the sentence to be served by ICO based on deterrence considerations' 'Whether the applicant suffered unjustifiable disparity compared to co-offenders']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge considered the relevant statutory and common law requirements, including community safety, and adequately addressed the submissions regarding an intensive correction order. The decision not to order an ICO was justified by the seriousness of the offending and the purposes of deterrence. There was no error established in reasons or process, nor unjustifiable disparity compared to co-offenders.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted on grounds (1) and (2); refused with respect to ground (3); appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal against his sentence on grounds (1) and (2).' 'Refuse leave to appeal with respect to ground (3).' 'Dismiss the appeal.']