Ul-Hassan v R [2018] NSWCCA 177

Ul-Hassan v R [2018] NSWCCA 177

The sentencing judge erred by failing to expressly take into account the applicant's unblemished criminal and driving record as a mitigating factor, warranting resentencing. Despite strong subjective factors favouring the applicant, the offences sit within the mid-range of objective seriousness and the moral culpability was high. An aggregate sentence of five years with a non-parole period of two years and six months is appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Waqar Ul-Hassan; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (sentence Appeal, Re Sentencing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; appellant resentenced.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm, Mitigating Factors, Extra Curial Punishment, No Prior Convictions
Criminal Law Sentencing Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm Mitigating Factors Extra Curial Punishment No Prior Convictions

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waqar Ul-Hassan

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (sentence Appeal, Re Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account applicant's Major Depressive Disorder
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred in finding applicant's conduct amounted to abandonment of responsibility and moral culpability was high
  3. 3 Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account degree of permanent injury to victims

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by failing to expressly take into account the applicant's unblemished criminal and driving record as a mitigating factor, warranting resentencing. Despite strong subjective factors favouring the applicant, the offences sit within the mid-range of objective seriousness and the moral culpability was high. An aggregate sentence of five years with a non-parole period of two years and six months is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; appellant resentenced.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal is allowed