Islam v R [2020] NSWCCA 236

Islam v R [2020] NSWCCA 236

The appeal failed because the commencement date of 18 November 2018 was deliberately and clearly nominated by the applicant at sentence, accepted by the Crown, and correctly reflected a four-month period of concurrency. The sentencing judge was aware of the earlier sentence, the totality principle and the finding of special circumstances. The 2019 sentence itself gave effect to special circumstances by fixing a non-parole period of 69.57% of the sentence, and the total effective non-parole period exceeding the statutory ratio by only 0.37% did not establish error given the seriousness and separateness of the offending and the adequacy of the parole period allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['participating in a Criminal Group' 'dealing With Identification Information' 'special Circumstances' 'totality Principle' 'non Parole Period' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeal'] ['participating in a Criminal Group' 'dealing With Identification Information' 'special Circumstances' 'totality Principle' 'non Parole Period' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' '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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentence imposed failed to reflect the sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances when regard was had to the total effective sentence to be served by the applicant." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in selecting 18 November 2018 as the commencement date for the sentence imposed in 2019.' 'Whether the total effective non-parole period exceeding the statutory ratio by 0.37% established error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the commencement date of 18 November 2018 was deliberately and clearly nominated by the applicant at sentence, accepted by the Crown, and correctly reflected a four-month period of concurrency. The sentencing judge was aware of the earlier sentence, the totality principle and the finding of special circumstances. The 2019 sentence itself gave effect to special circumstances by fixing a non-parole period of 69.57% of the sentence, and the total effective non-parole period exceeding the statutory ratio by only 0.37% did not establish error given the seriousness and separateness of the offending and the adequacy of the parole period allowed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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