Upadhyaya v R [2017] NSWCCA 162
The aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and the sentencing judge did not err by failing to take the compensation direction into account in mitigation. Leave to amend the appeal to raise the mitigation point was refused, leave to appeal otherwise granted, and appeal dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 July 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Post Sentencing
- Outcome
- Refuse leave to amend; grant leave to appeal; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['sentencing' 'fraud' 'corporate Crime' 'compensation Orders' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregation of Sentences']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Post Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking the compensation order into account in mitigation' 'Appropriateness of using comparative cases in sentencing' 'Mitigation of sentence due to compensation direction']
Ratio Decidendi
The aggregate sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and the sentencing judge did not err by failing to take the compensation direction into account in mitigation. Leave to amend the appeal to raise the mitigation point was refused, leave to appeal otherwise granted, and appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
Refuse leave to amend; grant leave to appeal; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Refuse leave to amend to add particular (d) of the existing proposed ground of appeal as an additional ground.' 'Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Appeal dismissed.']
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