R v Abboud [2005] NSWCCA 251

R v Abboud [2005] NSWCCA 251

The sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly inadequate due to a failure to properly consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the respondent’s serious and repeated criminal history, the principle of specific deterrence in cases of recalcitrant offenders, and improper treatment of separate offences as one by making all sentences wholly concurrent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal (criminal) / Determination of Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed and new sentences imposed as specified.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeals' 'sentencing' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'breach of Parole' 'criminal History' 'cumulative Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['crown Appeals' 'sentencing' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'breach of Parole' 'criminal History' 'cumulative Sentencing']

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

Crown Appeal (criminal) / Determination of Crown Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating multiple offences as one global offence' 'Appropriate consideration of prior criminal history in sentencing' 'Whether the breach of parole and previous criminal history were properly accounted for']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly inadequate due to a failure to properly consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the respondent’s serious and repeated criminal history, the principle of specific deterrence in cases of recalcitrant offenders, and improper treatment of separate offences as one by making all sentences wholly concurrent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed and new sentences imposed as specified.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Sentences imposed by Charteris DCJ on 4 March 2005 quashed.' "In lieu, new sentences imposed: (i) Common Assault of 24 September 2004 (Offence 2) – five months' imprisonment fixed term commencing 4 March 2005 and concluding 3 August 2005; (ii) Common Assault of 28 September 2004 (Offence 3) – ten...