Regina v Hamieh [2010] NSWCCA 189

Regina v Hamieh [2010] NSWCCA 189

The sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and in error because the sentencing judge did not adequately specify the level of objective seriousness or provide reasons for the significant departure from the standard non-parole period, failed to adequately address the need for general and personal deterrence given the nature of the offence and the respondent's antecedents, and an order for periodic detention was inappropriate in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Rene Edward Hamieh (also known as Nabil Jezzini)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence After Guilty Plea; Decision of NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; new sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Car Rebirthing, Sentencing, Objective Seriousness, Standard Non Parole Period, Departure From Standard Non Parole Period, Periodic Detention, General Deterrence, Manifestly Inadequate Sentence
Criminal Law Car Rebirthing Sentencing Objective Seriousness Standard Non Parole Period Departure From Standard Non Parole Period Periodic Detention General Deterrence +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 49 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Rene Edward Hamieh (also known as Nabil Jezzini)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence After Guilty Plea; Decision of NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly make a finding as to where on the scale of objective seriousness the offending fell
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to give reasons for reducing the non-parole period below the standard non-parole period
  3. 3 Whether the departure from the applicable standard non-parole period so great as to manifest error

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and in error because the sentencing judge did not adequately specify the level of objective seriousness or provide reasons for the significant departure from the standard non-parole period, failed to adequately address the need for general and personal deterrence given the nature of the offence and the respondent's antecedents, and an order for periodic detention was inappropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; new sentence imposed

Orders

  • Quash the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge
  • In lieu thereof, order the respondent is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 14 May 2010 and concluding on 13 May 2012 with a balance of term of 12 months commencing on 14 May 2012 and concluding on 13 May 2013