Al Saadi v R [2017] NSWCCA 110

Al Saadi v R [2017] NSWCCA 110

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's submission sought impermissible double counting between the guilty plea discount and the assistance discount, lacked support in authority, and was inconsistent with the 35% combined discount his counsel had urged below. The sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness was open: the applicant was sentenced as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise and was culpable for the assaults, including conduct by others within that enterprise, and the references to cigarette burns and cruelty were justified on the agreed facts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'assistance to Authorities' 'objective Seriousness' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'specially Aggravated Detain for Advantage Whilst in Company and Inflicting Actual Bodily Harm']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'discount for Guilty Plea' 'assistance to Authorities' 'objective Seriousness' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'specially Aggravated Detain for Advantage Whilst in Company and Inflicting Actual Bodily Harm']

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 Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to give an adequate discount for the plea having regard to the applicant's assistance to the Crown." "Whether the sentence was disproportionate to the applicant's role in the offence." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's submission sought impermissible double counting between the guilty plea discount and the assistance discount, lacked support in authority, and was inconsistent with the 35% combined discount his counsel had urged below. The sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness was open: the applicant was sentenced as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise and was culpable for the assaults, including conduct by others within that enterprise, and the references to cigarette burns and cruelty were justified on the agreed facts.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']