Elmir v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 22


NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
Elmir v R [2009] NSWCCA 22

FILE NUMBER(S):
13738/06

HEARING DATE(S):
10 December 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 February 2009

PARTIES:
Fawaz Mohammed Elmire
Regina

JUDGMENT OF:
Tobias JA James J Price J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
DC 06/11/0320

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
19 December 2007

COUNSEL:
A: Mr A P Cook SC
R: Ms W J Abraham QC / L K Crowley

SOLICITORS:
A: Legal Aid Commission of NSW, Sydney
R: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – pleas – general pleas – plea of guilty – whether conviction for an offence was a miscarriage of justice where plea of guilty entered under a belief as to the law applicable to the case which was subsequently overturned
 sentence – cumulative sentences – whether accumulation of sentence just and appropriate – relevant factors – hardship to others – whether medical condition of convicted person’s wife and subsequent impact on children constituted exceptional circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Dowe v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission [2007] NSWSC 166; (2007) 169 A Crim R 43
Gedeon v Commissioner of New South Wales Commission; Dowe v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43; [2008] 82 ALJR 1465
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136
Maxwell v The Queen [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Mill v R [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Chiron (1980) 1 NSWLR 218
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400
R v Girard [2004] NSWCCA 170
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61; (2001) 121 A Crim R 472
R v Khan [2002] NSWCCA 521
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187
R v Myers (2002) NSWCCA 162
R v Rae (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 380; (2005) 157 A Crim R 182
R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; (2001) 127 A Crim R 23
R v Toro-Martinez [2000] NSWCCA 216; (2000) 114 A Crim R 533
R v Van [2002] NSWCCA 148; (2002) 129 A Crim R 229
Sauer v R [2006] NSWCCA 81
Woods v R [2008] NSWCCA 83

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
(a)       Appeal against…

Continue reading Elmir v R

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Elmir v R [2009] NSWCCA 22
Case
[2009] NSWCCA 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Elmir, appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial judge in the County Court. The primary issue was whether his conviction constituted a miscarriage of justice due to his plea of guilty being entered under a mistaken belief about the applicable law, which was later overturned. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the cumulative sentence was just and appropriate, considering the exceptional circumstances of the appellant's wife's medical condition and its impact on their children.

The court examined the grounds of the appeal, focusing on whether the plea of guilty was entered under a mistaken belief about the law, and if this constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the cumulative sentence was just and appropriate, taking into account the hardship to others, particularly the medical condition of the appellant's wife and its subsequent impact on their children. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the plea and the sentencing process, including the appellant's understanding of the legal implications at the time of pleading guilty.

The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was not entered under a mistaken belief about the law that would constitute a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the cumulative sentence imposed by the trial judge was deemed just and appropriate in all the circumstances. The court acknowledged the exceptional circumstances but concluded that they did not warrant a different sentence. Therefore, the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence was dismissed.

The orders of the court were to dismiss the appellant's appeal against both his conviction and the sentence. The judges unanimously agreed, affirming the trial judge's decision on both the conviction and the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In any event, even if her Honour had overlooked that consideration, nevertheless in all the circumstances I am of the opinion that no sentence other than that imposed by the sentencing judge was warranted in law within the meaning of s 6(3) under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. Accordingly, I would reject the appellant’s second ground of appeal.Conclusion It follows from the foregoing that the appellant’s challenge to his sentence and conviction fail. I would therefore propose the following orders: JAMES J: I agree with Tobias JA. PRICE J: I agree with Tobias JA.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.