Dowlat Soliman v The Queen

In the matter of Dowlat Soliman v The Queen, the appellant, Soliman, sought to appeal his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. Soliman had been convicted of obtaining financial advantage by deception through the misstatement of income to a Commonwealth entity on 123 occasions. The primary judge imposed a total effective sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, with a recognisance release order after five months' imprisonment. Soliman contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly given the length of time over which the offending occurred and the fact that he had previously been convicted of similar offences.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and extent of the offending, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court noted that the appellant's offending was persistent over a lengthy period, and that he had previously been convicted of similar offences. However, the court also noted that the sentence was well within the range of sentences that could have been imposed for the offences committed.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offending, and that it was necessary to provide deterrence and denunciation. The court further found that the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's offending, and that it was not excessive in light of the need to protect the community and uphold the rule of law. Leave to appeal was refused.

The court did not make any further orders.