Ghomari v The Queen

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Ghomari, was represented by Mr P. Byrne, and the respondent, The Queen, was represented by Mr M.S. Weinberg, QC, and Mr T.L. Buddin. The core of the dispute revolved around the sentencing of Mr Ghomari, specifically the distinction between a head sentence for a Commonwealth prisoner and a minimum term under New South Wales sentencing legislation.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales had erred in its sentencing determination. Specifically, the applicant contended that the sentencing judge had misunderstood the difference between the maximum term of imprisonment for a Commonwealth offender and the minimum term of imprisonment under the Sentencing Act in New South Wales. This misunderstanding, it was argued, led to an incorrect imposition of the sentence.

The applicant's argument, as articulated by Mr Byrne, was that if the Court of Criminal Appeal had found the original sentence to be flawed and had resentenced the appellant, any imposed sentence of eight years would have required the specification of a non-parole period. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had erroneously equated the head sentence for a Commonwealth offender with the minimum term applicable under New South Wales law. Reference was made to the High Court's decision in *Lowe v Reg* (1965) 154 CLR 606, where Justice Mason emphasised the importance of consistency in punishment for public confidence in the administration of justice.