R v Tarek Mohamadin [2004] NSWCCA 401

R v Tarek Mohamadin [2004] NSWCCA 401

Although the sentencing judge erred by treating the actual or threatened use of violence, actual or threatened use of a weapon, and offending in company as aggravating factors when they were elements of the offences, no lesser sentence was warranted. The offending involved seven robbery offences, including five armed robberies, with planning, attacks on vulnerable pizza delivery victims, use of knives, offending in company, unrecovered property, and conduct over several months. Having regard to the seriousness of the offences and despite the applicant's favourable subjective features and guilty pleas, the effective sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'robbery in Company' 'drug Dependent Offender' 'manifest Excess' 'totality' 'aggravating Factors' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['armed Robbery' 'robbery in Company' 'drug Dependent Offender' 'manifest Excess' 'totality' 'aggravating Factors' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for multiple armed robberies and related Form 1 offences were manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by declining to treat the applicant's drug dependency as mitigating the otherwise appropriate penalty." "Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant's contrition." 'Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the totality principle by partially accumulating sentences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by treating matters that were elements of the offences as aggravating factors under s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether, despite established error, a less severe sentence was warranted under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred by treating the actual or threatened use of violence, actual or threatened use of a weapon, and offending in company as aggravating factors when they were elements of the offences, no lesser sentence was warranted. The offending involved seven robbery offences, including five armed robberies, with planning, attacks on vulnerable pizza delivery victims, use of knives, offending in company, unrecovered property, and conduct over several months. Having regard to the seriousness of the offences and despite the applicant's favourable subjective features and guilty pleas, the effective sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']