Ram v R [2012] NSWCCA 177

Ram v R [2012] NSWCCA 177

The evidence sought to be admitted was available and could have been obtained prior to sentencing, and was not fresh or new. The sentencing judge appropriately considered all relevant circumstances, including extra-curial punishment and family hardship. No error was identified justifying interference with the sentence. Leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['appeal' 'sentence' 'fresh or New Evidence' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'exceptional Hardship']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal' 'sentence' 'fresh or New Evidence' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'exceptional Hardship']

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 Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to extra-curial punishment and exceptional family hardship in sentencing' 'Whether fresh or new evidence could be admitted on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence sought to be admitted was available and could have been obtained prior to sentencing, and was not fresh or new. The sentencing judge appropriately considered all relevant circumstances, including extra-curial punishment and family hardship. No error was identified justifying interference with the sentence. Leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']