Akbari v The Queen; Nasiri v The Queen

In the cases of Akbari v The Queen and Nasiri v The Queen, the applicants appealed against their sentences for their involvement in a criminal scheme where they demanded a substantial sum of money from a business owner with threats of harm. The applicants argued that the trial judge had erred in various respects, including in the consideration of their mental health issues, the determination of the objective seriousness of the offence, and the application of parity principles in sentencing. The High Court of Australia reviewed the matter to determine whether the sentences imposed were appropriate.

The court was required to consider whether there was an error in the trial judge's assessment of the applicants' mental health issues and whether these issues had a causal link to their offending behaviour. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the crime, and whether there was an error in distinguishing between the roles of the co-offenders and applying parity principles in sentencing.

The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's consideration of the applicants' mental health issues, as no causal link was established between these issues and their offending behaviour. The court held that the trial judge correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, noting that the applicants had extorted a substantial sum of money from a business owner and threatened harm to the victim and their family. The court also found that it was open to the trial judge to differentiate between the applicants based on their roles in the crime and that there was no error in the application of parity principles.

The appeals were dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing.