Mehrdadian v The King - [2025] VSCA 125

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0047

IQAN MEHRDADIAN	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WALKER and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 02025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 125
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2025] VCC 104 (Judge Hassan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Principle of parity – Appellant and other offender both convicted of firearm related offences in relation to same firearms – Other offender subject to lesser sentence – Whether primary judge had regard to principle of parity – Circumstances of appellant’s offending and his criminal history justified higher sentence – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

Rose v The King [2024] VSCA 296, applied.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Applicant pleaded guilty to failing to immediately surrender a firearm related item when served with a prohibition order – Primary judge imposed sentence of 6 months for that offence, with cumulation of 3 months – Gravamen of offending was failure to surrender five rounds of ammunition – Offending at the very low end of seriousness – Mitigating circumstances – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed.

Firearms Act 1996 ss 3, 7C, 112P; Crimes Act 1958 s 465AAA, considered.

Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64; Kellway (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 109; Nipoe v The Queen [2020] VSCA 137, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Farrington
Respondent:		Ms A French
Solicitors
Applicant:	Theo Magazis and Associates
Respondent:	Office of Public Prosecutions

WALKER JA
T FORREST JA:

On 6 February 2025 the applicant, Iqan Mehrdadian, pleaded guilty before the County Court to one charge of unauthorised possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms,[1] one charge of failing to immediately surrender a firearm related item when served with a prohibition order[2] and one charge of failing to comply with a direction to assist.[3] The first two charges were indictable offences and the third charge was a summary offence. The applicant was a prohibited person under the Firearms Act 1996 at the time of the offending.
[1]Contrary to s 7C(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.
[2]Contrary to s 112P(1) of the Firearms Act.
[3]Contrary to s 465AAA of the Crimes Act 1958.
The plea was conducted on the basis that the applicant had, and exercised, access to the firearms the subject of charge 1, meaning that he was in possession of them within the meaning of s 3 of the Firearms Act. The applicant had offered the firearms for sale. However, the firearms were in the physical possession of another person, Aaron Sharp. Sharp had been sentenced by the Magistrates’ Court on 4 March 2024 for the summary offences of non‑prohibited person possessing an unregistered category A longarm, possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence, possessing methamphetamine and failing to comply with a direction to assist. He was sentenced to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mehrdadian v The King

Details

AGLC: Mehrdadian v The King [2025] VSCA 125
Case: [2025] VSCA 125
Decision Date: 4 June 02025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mehrdadian v The King involved the appellant challenging the sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mehrdadian, was convicted of firearm-related offences and was sentenced to imprisonment. In a separate matter, the appellant also pleaded guilty to failing to surrender a firearm-related item when served with a prohibition order, for which he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. Both the appellant and another offender were convicted of firearm-related offences involving the same firearms, with the other offender receiving a lesser sentence. The appellant argued that the principle of parity, which seeks to ensure equitable treatment of offenders, was not properly considered by the primary judge, and that his criminal history justified a higher sentence. Additionally, the appellant challenged the severity of the sentence imposed for the failure to surrender offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge had appropriately considered the principle of parity in sentencing the appellant, and whether the sentence imposed for the failure to surrender offence was manifestly excessive. The court needed to determine if the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence, taking into account the mitigating circumstances. The court also had to assess whether the appellant’s criminal history warranted a harsher sentence compared to the other offender.

In its decision, the court held that the principle of parity was not adequately considered by the primary judge. The court found that the circumstances of the appellant's offending and his criminal history did justify a higher sentence. However, regarding the failure to surrender offence, the court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The gravamen of the offending was the failure to surrender five rounds of ammunition, which was at the very low end of seriousness. The court noted the mitigating circumstances and allowed the appeal on this ground. As a result, the appeal against the failure to surrender sentence was allowed, while the appeal against the firearm-related sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the failure to surrender sentence was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. The matter was remitted to the County Court of Victoria for re-sentencing. The appeal against the firearm-related sentence was dismissed.

Orders