HEYDARKHANI -v- THE QUEEN [2014] WASCA 52
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 52 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:99/2013 | 4 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P PULLIN JA MAZZA JA | 12/03/14 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal on ground 2 refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALI KHORRAM HEYDARKHANI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Manifest excess Whether offending within the worst category |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt IB Criminal Code (Cth), s 5.4(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 232A, s 233A, s 233B, s 233C, s 236B |
Case References: | AJ v The Queen [2011] WASCA 166 Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249 Brown v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 111; (2011) 207 A Crim R 533 Cita v The Queen [2001] WASCA 5; (2001) 120 A Crim R 307 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Haidari [2013] VSCA 149 Giglia v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 9 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 McLeod v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 233 R v Disun [2003] WASCA 47; (2003) 27 WAR 146 Warnakulasuriya v The Queen [2012] WASCA 10 Zimmerman v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 211 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HEYDARKHANI -v- THE QUEEN [2014] WASCA 52 CORAM : McLURE P
- PULLIN JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : SCOTT DCJ
File No : IND 1474 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Manifest excess - Whether offending within the worst category
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt IB
Criminal Code (Cth), s 5.4(2)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 232A, s 233A, s 233B, s 233C, s 236B
Result:
Leave to appeal on ground 2 refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S B Watters
Respondent : Mr R J Davies QC & Mr M G A Plummer
Solicitors:
Appellant : John Rando & Co
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
AJ v The Queen [2011] WASCA 166
Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249
Brown v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 111; (2011) 207 A Crim R 533
Cita v The Queen [2001] WASCA 5; (2001) 120 A Crim R 307
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Haidari [2013] VSCA 149
Giglia v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 9
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
McLeod v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 233
R v Disun [2003] WASCA 47; (2003) 27 WAR 146
Continue reading Heydarkhani v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Heydarkhani v The Queen [2014] WASCA 52
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Heydarkhani v The Queen, the appellant, Heydarkhani, appealed against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the severity of the sentence imposed for his involvement in a drug trafficking offence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the offending fell within the worst category for the purposes of sentencing. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the offence and that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had carefully considered the relevant factors and appropriately assessed the gravity of the offending. The court emphasised that drug trafficking is a serious crime that warrants significant punishment. The appellate court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not fall outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
The orders of the court were that leave to appeal on ground 2 was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the offending fell within the worst category for the purposes of sentencing. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the offence and that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had carefully considered the relevant factors and appropriately assessed the gravity of the offending. The court emphasised that drug trafficking is a serious crime that warrants significant punishment. The appellate court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not fall outside the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
The orders of the court were that leave to appeal on ground 2 was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal on ground 2 refused
Appeal dismissed
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.