R v Alkanaan [2009] NSWCCA 44

R v Alkanaan [2009] NSWCCA 44

Although the individual sentences on counts 1 and 4 were lenient but not independently outside the range requiring intervention, the overall effective sentence was manifestly inadequate because the cumulation added only 12 months to the non-parole period for the serious attempted aggravated car jacking and firearm discharge offences, failing to reflect the respondent's total criminality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Resentencing
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; sentences imposed in the District Court quashed; respondent resentenced.
Legal Topics
['manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'totality' 'cumulation' 'aggravated Car Jacking' 'attempted Aggravated Car Jacking' 'maliciously Discharging a Loaded Firearm With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'form 1 Offence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'totality' 'cumulation' 'aggravated Car Jacking' 'attempted Aggravated Car Jacking' 'maliciously Discharging a Loaded Firearm With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'form 1 Offence']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court; Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on the respondent were manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the extent of cumulation failed to reflect the objective seriousness of counts 2 and 4 and the respondent's total criminality." 'Whether the sentence on count 4 was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentence on count 1 adequately reflected the Form 1 offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the individual sentences on counts 1 and 4 were lenient but not independently outside the range requiring intervention, the overall effective sentence was manifestly inadequate because the cumulation added only 12 months to the non-parole period for the serious attempted aggravated car jacking and firearm discharge offences, failing to reflect the respondent's total criminality.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; sentences imposed in the District Court quashed; respondent resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Crown appeal against sentence allowed.' 'Sentences imposed in the District Court quashed.' 'On count 1, taking into account the matter on Form 1, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 1 May 2007 and expiring on 30 April 2011, with a balance term of...