El-Zeyat v The Queen; Aouad v The Queen; Osman v The Queen

The appeals were brought by three applicants, El-Zeyat, Aouad, and Osman, who were each sentenced to imprisonment for life for two counts of murder. They appealed against the severity of their sentences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The applicants argued that the sentencing judge made errors in assessing the objective seriousness of the murders and considered an additional charge of murder that was later abandoned. They also contended that their youth should have been given more weight in the sentencing, and that there was a disparity in their sentences compared to their co-offenders. The applicants sought to appeal the severity of their sentences, the application of the principles of parity, and the calculation of their non-parole periods. Additionally, they applied for an extension of time to appeal.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the murders, whether the judge wrongly considered an abandoned charge, and if the weight given to the applicants' youth was appropriate. The court also considered if the principles of parity applied when sentencing individuals who warranted life imprisonment and if there was a "Muldrock error" in the calculation of the non-parole periods. Furthermore, the court assessed if the applicants' appeals were within the permissible time frame.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in assessing the objective seriousness of the murders and had separately evaluated the gravity of each individual murder. The court held that the judge did not erroneously consider the abandoned charge of murder. It was noted that the sentencing judge had expressly recognised the applicants' immaturity, and the weight to be accorded to this factor was a matter for the sentencing judge. The court held that the principles of parity did not apply when the culpability of the offenders warranted life imprisonment. The applicants' appeal against the severity of their sentences was dismissed. However, the court found that there was a "Muldrock error" in the calculation of the non-parole periods, and the appeals in this respect were upheld. The applicants were remitted for sentencing to a single judge of the Supreme Court of NSW. Lastly, the court granted the applicants leave to appeal within the extension of time allowed under the Criminal Appeal Rules, considering the interests of justice.

The court dismissed the appeals against the severity of the sentences and the application of the principles of parity but allowed the appeals regarding the calculation of the non-parole periods. The applicants were remitted for sentencing in relation to the non-parole periods, and leave to appeal was granted within the extended time frame.