Majid v The Queen (No. 2)

Case [2016] NSWCCA 311


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Majid v R (No. 2) [2016] NSWCCA 311
Hearing dates:On the papers
Date of orders: 16 December 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Price J at [1]
Davies J at [1]
Decision:

Amend the sentence for count 2 imposed on 9 December 2016 to read:

 On Count 2 a non-parole period of eight years commencing 13 April 2010 and expiring 12 April 2018 with an additional term of three years and ten months expiring 12 February 2022.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – error in fixing balance of term – sentence adjusted under rule 50C
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Majid v R [2010] NSWCCA 121
Majid v R [2016] NSWCCA 289
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Darush Majid (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Kell SC and M Pulsford (Crown)
G Bashir SC and J Roy (Appellant)

  Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):2016/135562
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
18 December 2008
Before:
Puckeridge DCJ
File Number(s):
2007/11853

Judgment OF THE COURT

  1. The Court gave judgment on 9 December 2016 upholding the appeal and resentencing the Appellant: Majid v R [2016] NSWCCA 289. The new sentence was as follows:

(4)   In lieu, sentence the Appellant as follows:

(a)   On Count 1 a non-parole period of seven years commencing 13 April 2008 and expiring 12 April 2015 with an additional term of four years six months expiring 12 October 2019;

(b)   On Count 2 a non-parole period of eight years commencing 13 April 2010 and expiring 12 April 2018 with an additional term of four years six months expiring 12 October 2022.

  1. The Appellant had initially been sentenced in respect of Count 2 to a non-parole period of ten years commencing 13 October 2008 and expiring 12 October 2018 with an additional term of four years expiring 12 October 2022. On appeal to this Court in 2010 the Appellant was resentenced on Count 2 to a non-parole period of ten years but with the balance of term reduced to three years and four months so that the sentence expired 12 February 2022: Majid v R [2010] NSWCCA 121.

  2. The Appellant now makes application under r 50C Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW) asserting that the sentence imposed for Count 2 on 9 December 2016 was a slip and did not reflect this Court’s intention as expressed in the judgment.

  3. The Court made clear at [72] and [73] that it was intended to adjust the balance of the term because of a finding of special circumstances. However, the Court was constrained by the overall sentence and, in that way, did not intend to increase the sentence. Further, the sentences were adjusted to better reflect the accumulation that was appropriate for the separate offending constituted by Counts 1 and 2.

  4. When the Court came to resentence it erroneously resentenced on the basis that the existing balance of term expired on 12 October 2022 when, by reason of the Court of Criminal Appeal’s adjustment to the sentence in 2010, the balance of term expired on 12 February 2022.

  5. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on 9 December 2016 in respect of Count 2 is amended and the Appellant is sentenced as follows:

On Count 2 a non-parole period of eight years commencing 13 April 2010 and expiring 12 April 2018 with an additional term of three years and ten months expiring 12 February 2022.

**********

Details
AGLC
Majid v The Queen (No. 2) [2016] NSWCCA 311
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Majid v The Queen (No. 2), the appellant, Mr. Majid, appealed against his sentence, arguing that the primary judge erred in the calculation of the balance of the term of imprisonment. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mr. Majid had been convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which he argued was incorrectly calculated by the primary judge. The central legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge had miscalculated the balance of the term of imprisonment, and if so, whether the error was such that it warranted the sentence being adjusted under the relevant rule.

The court considered the principles governing sentence calculations and the application of rule 50C. It was established that the primary judge had indeed made an error in the calculation of the balance of the term of imprisonment. However, the court noted that the error was not substantial enough to warrant the sentence being set aside and re-imposed. Instead, the court had the discretion to adjust the sentence under rule 50C to correct the error. The court found that the appropriate course of action was to adjust the sentence to reflect the correct balance, thereby ensuring that the sentence was both fair and accurate.

After reviewing the relevant provisions and the nature of the error, the court adjusted the sentence to correct the miscalculation. The court held that the sentence should be amended to accurately reflect the balance of the term of imprisonment as intended by the primary judge. This adjustment was made to ensure the sentence was consistent with the legal requirements and the principles of fairness in sentencing.

The court's final order was that the sentence should be adjusted to correct the error in the balance of the term of imprisonment. This adjustment was made to reflect the intended sentence as determined by the primary judge. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the adjusted sentence was upheld as appropriate.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.