Aliabadi v R [2020] NSWCCA 224
Leave to appeal was refused because no House v The King error was demonstrated in the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness. The assessments of counts 1, 2 and 3 accorded with submissions made by the applicant's trial counsel at sentence, and the sentencing judge's brief ex tempore reasons sufficiently exposed the basis for the assessments.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 September 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence Appeal in Criminal Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Sentence' 'assessment of Objective Seriousness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'house V the King Error']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal in Criminal Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing count 3 as just below mid-range in objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing counts 1 and 2 as below mid-range in objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave inadequate reasons for the assessment of objective seriousness for count 3.']
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because no House v The King error was demonstrated in the sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness. The assessments of counts 1, 2 and 3 accorded with submissions made by the applicant's trial counsel at sentence, and the sentencing judge's brief ex tempore reasons sufficiently exposed the basis for the assessments.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused.
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment