Ahmad v R

In Ahmad v R, the respondent appealed against his sentence, contending that the sentencing judge had taken into account an irrelevant factor when imposing the sentence. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The respondent argued that the sentencing judge had given undue weight to the availability of an intensive correction order as a sentencing option, despite the fact that neither party had raised this as a possibility before the judge. The respondent also claimed that the judge had erred in considering his conditional liberty status at the time of the offending as an aggravating factor, as this status had been revoked prior to the offence.

The court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had indeed considered an irrelevant factor in imposing the sentence, and whether the respondent's status as being on conditional liberty at the time of the offending was properly taken into account. The court also needed to examine whether the sentencing judge was required to consider an intensive correction order as a sentencing option, despite the fact that neither party had raised this as a possibility.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not taken into account an irrelevant factor when imposing the sentence, as the exchange between the judge and counsel regarding the availability of an intensive correction order did not form part of the reasons for sentence. The court also found that the respondent's status as being on conditional liberty at the time of the offending was properly taken into account, as the revocation of the earlier parole order with effect from a date before the offending conduct was not sufficient to alter the respondent's status in the community before the revocation order was made. Finally, the court found that the sentencing judge was not obliged to consider an intensive correction order as a sentencing option, as neither party had pressed for this option before the judge. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.