Ghoubriel v The Queen

Ghoubriel appealed against sentences imposed by a judge of the District Court of New South Wales following convictions for multiple counts of obtaining property by deception. The appeal concerned the application of the principle of totality and whether the complete absence of concurrency in the sentences rendered them manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to adequately apply the principle of totality when imposing consecutive sentences for the various offences. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the aggregate sentence was so disproportionate to the overall criminality as to be manifestly excessive, notwithstanding the seriousness of the individual offences.

The court reasoned that the principle of totality requires a sentencing judge to consider the aggregate effect of consecutive sentences and ensure that the total punishment is just and appropriate for the totality of the criminal conduct. While acknowledging the gravity of the offences, the court found that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to this principle, leading to an overly severe cumulative sentence. The absence of any concurrency, in the context of the overall offending, was identified as a key factor contributing to the manifest excessiveness of the sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the sentences were set aside, and a new sentence was imposed, reflecting a greater degree of concurrency and a reduction in the overall term.