Alessawi and Snowball v The King

Alessawi and Snowball appealed against their convictions and sentences in the Court of Appeal of Victoria. Alessawi contested the conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice and the sentence for discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for safety, among other offences. Snowball appealed against his sentence for home invasion, criminal damage, theft, and firearm offences. The court considered whether Alessawi's actions constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice and whether his sentence was manifestly excessive, while Snowball's appeal focused on the relevance of new evidence regarding a neurocognitive disorder and its impact on his sentence.

The court examined whether Alessawi's demand that another person accept false nomination for a driving offence, and his preparation of a false nomination statement, constituted a completed act with the requisite tendency to pervert the course of justice. It also assessed whether Alessawi's sentence, considering the seriousness of his offences, the risk to public safety, and his youth, was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court considered whether the new evidence of Snowball's neurocognitive disorder was fresh or new and if it demonstrated the true significance of the facts existing at the time of sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that Alessawi's actions did not constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice as they did not reach the threshold of a completed act with the requisite tendency. It held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offending and the importance of general deterrence. The court also determined that Snowball's new evidence did not engage the principles set out in Verdins and, therefore, did not warrant a sentence appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal against both convictions and sentences was refused.

The court upheld the convictions and sentences for both Alessawi and Snowball, rejecting the arguments presented in their appeals. The decision reaffirmed the criteria for attempting to pervert the course of justice and the factors to be considered in assessing the severity of sentences, particularly in cases involving serious and highly planned offending. The court's ruling underscored the importance of general deterrence in sentencing and the limited scope for appeals based on fresh or new evidence that does not meet the Verdins criteria.