R v Sultan; R v N [2003] NSWCCA 404

R v Sultan; R v N [2003] NSWCCA 404

Given the excessive leniency to co-offender X and disparity with Broderick, the lowest permissible sentences for N and Sultan within the accepted range reflecting their personal circumstances, youth, and prospects for rehabilitation are 7 years imprisonment with a 4-year non-parole period. Their prior records did not disentitle them to leniency, and judgment must adequately accommodate parity.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Shadi Sultan; Appellant: N
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeals allowed; original sentences quashed; resentenced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Parity Principle, Prior Criminal History, Rehabilitation, Youthful Offenders, Break Enter and Steal, Home Invasion
Criminal Law Sentencing Parity Principle Prior Criminal History Rehabilitation Youthful Offenders Break Enter and Steal Home Invasion

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Shadi Sultan

Appellant

N

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the sentences imposed on Shadi Sultan and N were unduly harsh and severe
  2. 2 whether sufficient allowance was made for the youth and personal circumstances of the applicants
  3. 3 whether the sentencing judge erred in the weight given to prior criminal records and pleas of guilty

Ratio Decidendi

Given the excessive leniency to co-offender X and disparity with Broderick, the lowest permissible sentences for N and Sultan within the accepted range reflecting their personal circumstances, youth, and prospects for rehabilitation are 7 years imprisonment with a 4-year non-parole period. Their prior records did not disentitle them to leniency, and judgment must adequately accommodate parity.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeals allowed; original sentences quashed; resentenced

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence granted for both N and Sultan
  • N’s sentence quashed; sentenced to 7 years imprisonment commencing 1 November 2001, with a non-parole period of 4 years expiring 31 October 2005