Naveed v R

Naveed was convicted of one count of sexual intercourse without consent and sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 4 months. The applicant, an Uber driver, had sexually assaulted a heavily intoxicated passenger in his vehicle. Naveed applied for leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that the sentencing judge erred in her interpretation of section 21A(3)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) in assessing evidence of remorse, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Specifically, Naveed had written a letter of apology which was submitted to the sentencing judge after the hearing. Despite this, the judge concluded that Naveed did not demonstrate remorse. The court found that the judge’s conclusion was open to her, given the circumstances, and that the sentence was not plainly unreasonable or unjust.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge was correct in her assessment of remorse. The judge concluded that Naveed did not show remorse, despite the letter, because he did not give evidence and thus had no opportunity to express remorse in court. The court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to draw this inference and that the conclusion was open to her. Regarding the sentence, the court noted that the applicant did not challenge the sentencing judge’s assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, which was high due to the nature of the assault and the victim's state. The court compared the sentence with other cases of similar gravity and determined that it was not plainly unreasonable or manifestly unjust. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence fell within an acceptable range and the sentencing judge’s conclusions were supported by the evidence.