Chahal v The Queen - [2017] NSWCCA 203

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chahal v R [2017] NSWCCA 203
Hearing dates: 11 August 2017
Date of orders: 28 August 2017
Decision date: 28 August 2017
Before: Simpson JA at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
Davies J at [47]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.

(2) Allow the appeal.

(3) Quash the sentence imposed upon the applicant by G D Woods QC DCJ on 27 May 2016.

(4) In lieu of the sentence imposed, sentence the applicant as follows :-

(a) On the charge of possessing an offensive weapon (knife) with intent to commit an indictable offence (armed robbery) in company, sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years commencing on 11 March 2016 and expiring on 10 March 2018.
(b) On the charge of aggravated (in company) break, enter and steal and commit serious indictable offence (larceny), sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months commencing on 11 March 2017 and expiring on 10 December 2019 with a balance of term of 1 year and 11 months expiring on 10 November 2021.
Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against sentence – where sentencing judge indicated a discount for a plea of ten percent – where comparable co-offenders sentenced to same term without benefit of discount – whether sentencing judge omitted to apply discount as indicated – whether similarity of sentences explicable by applicant’s differing subjective case
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Huckstadt v R [2016] NSWCCA 22
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lehn v R [2016] NSWCCA 255
Newman v R [2012] NSWCCA 69
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
Williamson v R [2015] NSWCCA 250
Zhao v R [2016] NSWCCA 179
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ammar Chahal (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Game SC and A Francis (Applicant)
B Baker (Crown)
Solicitors:
Zahr Partners (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/317174
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Sydney District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

27 May 2016

Before:

Judge G D Woods QC

File Number(s):

2013/317174

Judgment

SIMPSON JA: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: Ammar Chahal seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him on 27 May 2016 by G D Woods QC DCJ following pleas of guilty to two counts on an indictment as follows:

Count 1: On 14 July 2013 at Potts Point in New South Wales he did break and enter the licensed premises of Redmond Company Ltd trading as the Vegas Hotel at 54 Darlinghurst Road and did commit a serious indictable offence therein namely, larceny in circumstances of aggravation namely, being in company with two other persons; contrary to section 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 - maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment, standard non parole period five…

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 Chahal v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chahal v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 203
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 203
Decision Date: 28 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chahal v The Queen, the appellant Chahal was convicted of offences involving drug trafficking and was sentenced by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Chahal appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to apply a ten percent discount for his early guilty plea as indicated. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had indeed omitted to apply the discount, and if the similarity of sentences for comparable co-offenders could be explained by Chahal's differing subjective case.

The court examined the sentencing remarks of the trial judge to ascertain whether the discount was considered and applied. It was noted that the trial judge had mentioned the discount but did not explicitly state its application. The court held that the failure to explicitly apply the discount amounted to an error of law, as the trial judge had indicated that a discount would be applied. The similarity of sentences among co-offenders, who did not benefit from the discount, was not considered sufficient to justify the omission of the discount for Chahal.

As a result, the court determined that the sentencing error warranted the allowance of the appeal. The sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing, with proper application of the discount. The final orders included the quashing of the original sentence and the direction for resentencing in accordance with the court's determination.

Orders