Kandemir v R [2018] NSWCCA 154

Kandemir v R [2018] NSWCCA 154

The sentencing judge's misstatement of the maximum penalty was a material error, however, after considering the facts afresh and the relevant sentencing principles, no lesser or different sentence should be imposed. The utilitarian discount was appropriately set at 15%, and no greater moderation of general deterrence was warranted for the applicant's mental state. There was no marked disparity in accumulation of non-parole periods to warrant interference on parity grounds.

Parties
Applicant: Tamer Kandemir; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence is granted; appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Drug Offences, Accumulation of Sentences, Utilitarian Discount, General Deterrence, Parity Principle, Special Circumstances
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Drug Offences Accumulation of Sentences Utilitarian Discount General Deterrence Parity Principle Special Circumstances

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamer Kandemir

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred by considering the sentence against an incorrect maximum penalty
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in accumulation of the non-parole period of the sentences
  3. 3 Whether applicant should be re-sentenced

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge's misstatement of the maximum penalty was a material error, however, after considering the facts afresh and the relevant sentencing principles, no lesser or different sentence should be imposed. The utilitarian discount was appropriately set at 15%, and no greater moderation of general deterrence was warranted for the applicant's mental state. There was no marked disparity in accumulation of non-parole periods to warrant interference on parity grounds.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence is granted; appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal sentence is granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.