Yammine v R [2010] NSWCCA 123

Yammine v R [2010] NSWCCA 123

Although the sentencing judge erred by treating a standard non-parole period as a guidepost for the s 51D(2) Firearms Act 1996 offence when it did not apply, the firearms offence created a grave risk to public safety and the sentence imposed was within the proper range of sentencing discretion; no lesser sentence was warranted in law under s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912. For the malicious wounding offence, it was open to the sentencing judge to doubt remorse, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of a knife attack in a public place.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against the sentence for the firearms offence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the sentence for malicious wounding was refused.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Unauthorised Possession of Firearms' 'malicious Wounding' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess' 'remorse' 'post Sentence Evidence' 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 S 6(3)']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Unauthorised Possession of Firearms' 'malicious Wounding' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifest Excess' 'remorse' 'post Sentence Evidence' 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 S 6(3)']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by having regard to a standard non-parole period of 10 years for the offence under s 51D(2) Firearms Act 1996.' 'Whether the firearms offence was properly assessed as above the middle of the range of objective seriousness.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not finding that the applicant possessed the firearms only for a short period of time.' 'Whether the sentence for the firearms offence was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to find remorse for the malicious wounding offence.' 'Whether the sentence for malicious wounding was manifestly excessive and whether leave should be granted for that sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred by treating a standard non-parole period as a guidepost for the s 51D(2) Firearms Act 1996 offence when it did not apply, the firearms offence created a grave risk to public safety and the sentence imposed was within the proper range of sentencing discretion; no lesser sentence was warranted in law under s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912. For the malicious wounding offence, it was open to the sentencing judge to doubt remorse, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of a knife attack in a public place.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against the sentence for the firearms offence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the sentence for malicious wounding was refused.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against the sentence for the offence committed under s 51D(2) Firearms Act 1996.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' 'Refuse leave to appeal against the sentence for the offence committed under s 35 Crimes Act 1900.']