R (Cth) v Nadim Derbasi
Case
•
[2018] NSWDC 79
•16 February 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R (Cth) v Nadim Derbasi [2018] NSWDC 79
[2018] NSWDC 79
16 February 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Nadim Derbasi faced charges under the Commonwealth criminal law for engaging in an attempt to obtain a financial advantage by deception. The specific offence involved the lodging of false business activity statements, knowingly conveying false information. Derbasi pleaded guilty to these charges, which implicated him in a joint criminal enterprise. The court was required to determine the appropriate penalty, taking into consideration the mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as the offender's level of contrition and remorse. The sentencing process also required an assessment of the appropriate penalty, balancing the utilitarian value of the plea against the objective seriousness of the offence, general and specific deterrence, and the offender's background and psychological diagnosis.
The court weighed various sentencing principles, including the subjective matters such as the offender's background and psychological diagnosis, against the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court noted the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor, as well as Derbasi's expression of remorse. However, the court also considered aggravating factors, such as the nature of the offence and the involvement in a joint criminal enterprise. The court found that there was no alternative to imprisonment and ordered that Derbasi be referred for assessment as to his suitability for an intensive correction order as a means of serving the sentence. The court also made factual findings based on the evidence presented, including the disputed facts in relation to the offence.
The court concluded that the appropriate terms of imprisonment for Derbasi, when partially accumulated, would be for a period of no more than 2 years. The court ordered that the offender be convicted and that the sentence proceedings be adjourned part heard before the court to 9 April 2018. The court's final orders included a conviction, a determination of the appropriate penalty, a referral for assessment for an intensive correction order, and an adjournment of the sentence proceedings.
The court weighed various sentencing principles, including the subjective matters such as the offender's background and psychological diagnosis, against the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court noted the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor, as well as Derbasi's expression of remorse. However, the court also considered aggravating factors, such as the nature of the offence and the involvement in a joint criminal enterprise. The court found that there was no alternative to imprisonment and ordered that Derbasi be referred for assessment as to his suitability for an intensive correction order as a means of serving the sentence. The court also made factual findings based on the evidence presented, including the disputed facts in relation to the offence.
The court concluded that the appropriate terms of imprisonment for Derbasi, when partially accumulated, would be for a period of no more than 2 years. The court ordered that the offender be convicted and that the sentence proceedings be adjourned part heard before the court to 9 April 2018. The court's final orders included a conviction, a determination of the appropriate penalty, a referral for assessment for an intensive correction order, and an adjournment of the sentence proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Plea of Guilty
-
Sentencing
-
Aggravating Factors
-
Mitigating Factors
-
Remorse
-
Intensive Corrections Order
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R (Cth) v Nadim Derbasi [2018] NSWDC 79
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
3
Johnson v The Queen
[2004] HCA 15
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25
Johnson v The Queen
[2004] HCA 15