Legal Research
Cases
Bick v The Queen

Bick v The Queen

Case [2006] NSWCCA 408 13 December 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Bick v Regina (Commonwealth) [2006] NSWCCA 408

HEARING DATE(S): 13 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Howie J at 3; Price J at 4

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12/13/2006

DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Criminal Appeal - Commonwealth Offences - Social Security Fraud - Whether sentencing Judge erred in determining non - parole period - Whether ratio of non - parole period to aggregate head sentence excessive - Departure from usual range.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 29 D
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)s 19 A B (1)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s135.1 (5)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 6 (3)

CASES CITED: Bernier v The Queen (1998) 102 A Crim R 44 at 49
R v Behar (Court of Criminal Appeal, 14 October 1998, unreported)
R v Carr (2002) 135 A Crim R 171
R v Drazkiewicz (Court of Criminal Appeal,23 November 1993, unreported)
R v Ida Ronen, Nitzan Ronen, Izhar Ronen [2006] NSWCCA 123
R v John Viana [2001] NSWCCA 171
R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141
R v Meloh [2001] NSWCCA 211
R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186
R v Purdon (Court of Criminal Appeal, 27 March 1997 unreported)
R v Sweet (2001) 125 A Crim R 341
Stitt v The Queen (1998) 102 A Crim R 428

PARTIES: Shahab Aghajani Bick v Regina (Commonwealth)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1315

COUNSEL: W. Abrahams - Crown
J Manuell - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0113

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie - Wallace DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 4 November 2005

CCA 2006/1315

Hodgson JA
Howie J
Price J 13/12/06

Shahab Aghanjani BICK v Regina (Commonwealth)

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree. In my opinion it would have been preferable for the sentencing Judge to specify reasons for departing from the usual range of non-parole periods for Commonwealth offences. However, in the circumstances referred to by Price J, the absence of specific reasons in this case is not indicative of error justifying an appeal by the applicant being granted.

2 HODGSON JA: The orders of the Court are leave to appeal is granted. Appeal dismissed.

3 HOWIE J: For the reasons given by the other two members of this Court, I agree with the orders.

4 PRICE J: This is an application for leave to appeal by Shahab Aghajani Bick (conveniently referred to as the applicant) against sentences imposed by her Honour Judge Ainslie – Wallace on 4 November 2005 for 14 offences in breach of the criminal law of the Commonwealth.

5 On 9 February 2005 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the following offences:

(a) 11 counts contrary to s 29 D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth);

(b) 3 counts contrary to s 135 .1 (5) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).

6 There are two categories of offence of which the applicant is charged as during the course of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bick v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bick v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 408
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 408
Decision Date: 13/12/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Bick, against the decision of the respondent, The Queen. The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of social security fraud under Commonwealth law. The dispute centred on the sentencing, specifically the non-parole period set by the sentencing judge, which the appellant argued was excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contended that the non-parole period was disproportionate to the aggregate head sentence and represented an unreasonable departure from the usual range of sentences for similar offences. The central legal issues were whether the sentencing judge had erred in determining the non-parole period and whether the ratio of the non-parole period to the aggregate head sentence was excessive.

The court examined the sentencing principles and guidelines applicable to social security fraud cases. It considered the appellant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court assessed whether the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced these factors and whether the non-parole period was justified. The High Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in setting the non-parole period, concluding that the ratio of the non-parole period to the aggregate head sentence was not excessive and did not represent an unreasonable departure from the usual range. The court upheld the sentence as it reflected a proper application of sentencing principles.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the sentencing judge. The non-parole period set for the appellant remained in place, and the sentence was deemed appropriate under the circumstances. The decision underscored the importance of proportionality and the application of established sentencing principles in criminal cases. The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the original sentence.

Orders