Ahmad v R [2022] NSWCCA 144

Ahmad v R [2022] NSWCCA 144

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the alleged irrelevant consideration arose only from exchanges during the sentencing hearing and not from the reasons; the applicant was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending notwithstanding later parole revocation being treated as effective from an earlier date; and an intensive correction order was no longer pressed before the sentencing judge, so s 66 did not require separate consideration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'irrelevant Considerations in Sentencing' 'conditional Liberty as Aggravating Factor' 'parole Revocation' 'intensive Correction Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'irrelevant Considerations in Sentencing' 'conditional Liberty as Aggravating Factor' 'parole Revocation' 'intensive Correction Order']

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 Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge took into account an irrelevant factor concerning the Parole Authority and reinstatement of parole.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant was on conditional liberty at the time of the offences and in treating that as an aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not considering s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) in relation to an intensive correction order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the alleged irrelevant consideration arose only from exchanges during the sentencing hearing and not from the reasons; the applicant was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending notwithstanding later parole revocation being treated as effective from an earlier date; and an intensive correction order was no longer pressed before the sentencing judge, so s 66 did not require separate consideration.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']