Legal Research
Cases
Norouzi v R

Norouzi v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 237 18 September 2020

Appeal

Sentencing

Aggravated Dangerous Driving

Breach of Duty

Causation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Norouzi v R [2020] NSWCCA 237
Hearing dates: 10 August 2020
Date of orders: 18 September 2020
Decision date: 18 September 2020
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Walton J at [5]
Fullerton J at [74]
Decision:
(1) An extension of time is granted to bring the appeal out of time.
(2) Leave to appeal is granted.
(3) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death conviction – extension of time –objective seriousness of the offence above mid-range – subjective features not out of ordinary or substantial – comparative cases – JIRS statistics

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bombardieri v R (2010) 203 A Crim R 89; [2010] NSWCCA 161
Conte v R [2018] NSWCCA 209
Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
Obeid v R [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Shashati [2018] NSWCCA 167
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343
R v Williams [2014] NSWCCA 200
Small v R [2020] NSWCCA 181
Smith v R [2011] NSWCCA 290
Vale v R (2016) 77 MVR 194; [2016] NSWCCA 154
Vuni v R [2006] NSWCCA 171
Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hasan Norouzi (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Crown)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/384582
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

30 September 2019

Before:

Herbert DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/384582

JUDGMENT

PAYNE JA: I have read the decision of Walton J in draft and agree with his Honour’s reasons. I wish only to add a few brief observations of my own.
The Crown’s submissions on the appeal tended to deprecate the relevance of sentencing statistics and prior cases as providing any assistance to this Court on a sentence appeal. I regard what Bell P has observed about these issues in Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 as stating the correct approach to those issues.
There are cases, of which Conte v R [2018] NSWCCA 209 was one, where sentences imposed in previous cases can provide guidance to appellate courts. Accepting that it is only by examination of the whole of the circumstances that have given rise to the sentence that unifying principles may be discerned, such cases stand as a yardstick against which to examine a sentence which has been passed.
I agree with the orders suggested by Walton J.
WALTON J: By a notice of appeal filed 8 May 2020, Hasan…

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 Norouzi v R

Details

AGLC: Norouzi v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 237
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 237
Decision Date: 18 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Norouzi v R, the appellant, Mr Norouzi, appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central dispute pertained to the severity of the sentence imposed on Mr Norouzi, specifically whether it constituted a manifest excess of the applicable sentencing range.

The court needed to determine whether the sentence was excessive when considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective features of the case. The key legal issues were whether the sentence was appropriately aligned with the mid-range for such offences and whether the subjective features of the case warranted any departure from the usual sentencing range.

The court examined the objective seriousness of the offence, finding it to be above the mid-range due to the nature of the crime. However, the court also considered the subjective features of the case, which were not deemed out of the ordinary or substantial. By comparing Mr Norouzi's case with other similar cases and using the Judicial Indicative Ranges System (JIRS) statistics, the court determined that the sentence was not a manifest excess. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders