Legal Research
Cases
Droudis v R

Droudis v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 322 10 December 2020

Appeal

Sentencing

Facilitation of the Administration of Justice

Objective Seriousness of Offence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
Hearing dates: 19 June 2020
Decision date: 10 December 2020
Before: Bathurst CJ; Hoeben CJ at CL; Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant and in lieu thereof impose a sentence of 35 years imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 26 years and 3 months commencing on 22 December 2014 and expiring on 21 March 2041 with a balance of term of 8 years and 9 months expiring on 21 December 2049.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – failure to take into account a relevant consideration – whether sentencing judge erred in his assessment of the significance of the death of Man Haron Monis – personal deterrence, future dangerousness and prospects of rehabilitation
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – facilitation of the administration of justice – s 22A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – whether s 22A requires a two-stage approach or instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing –desirability of quantifying any discount imposed
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – re-sentence – objective seriousness of offence – comparable cases

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-Trial Procedure) Act 2001 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Barrett v R [2020] NSWCCA 11
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48
CMB v The Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Cooper v R [2009] NSWCCA 57
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41
Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Monis v The Queen; Droudis v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 4
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
R v Droudis (No 14) [2016] NSWSC 1550
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; 127 A Crim R 369
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300; [2002] NSWCCA 142
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Weismantel [2016] NSWCCA 204
The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Amirah Droudis (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Dhanji SC with R Wilson SC (Applicant)
T Smith SC with C Curtis (Respondent)

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 Droudis v R

Details

AGLC: Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 322
Decision Date: 10 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Droudis v R was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales. The appellant, Droudis, was convicted of facilitating the administration of justice by providing support to Man Haron Monis. The central issue in the appeal was the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial judge, with particular focus on the weight given to the death of Monis during sentencing and the application of section 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

The primary legal issue the court addressed was whether the sentencing judge had erred in his assessment of the significance of Monis's death. The appellant argued that the judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, specifically the role of Monis's actions in the events that unfolded. Another key issue was the correct approach to applying section 22A of the Act, which concerns the facilitation of the administration of justice. The appellant questioned whether the section requires a two-stage approach or an instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing, and if there is a need to quantify any discount imposed under the section.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering the death of Monis. It was held that the judge had appropriately assessed the appellant's role and the significance of Monis's actions in the context of the offence. Regarding the application of section 22A, the court held that an instinctive synthesis approach is appropriate, and there is no requirement to quantify any discount. The court also noted that the objective seriousness of the offence, as well as comparable cases, had been adequately considered by the sentencing judge.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various factors in determining the appropriate penalty, and that no error had been made in the sentencing process.

Orders