R v Abdullah

The applicant, a 52-year-old tow-truck driver, was convicted of sexually assaulting two young women on separate occasions. The first incident occurred when the applicant was negotiating the price for one woman's car. The second offence took place while the applicant was on bail for the first offence. He pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 and 12 months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after five months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. He contended that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the first complainant had suffered harm and been adversely affected by the offending, particularly since she did not provide a victim impact statement. The applicant also argued that the sentence was excessive given his lack of criminal history and his denial of the sexually motivated nature of his actions, as stated in a psychologist’s report.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, focusing on whether the sentencing judge made an error of fact. The applicant argued that the judge's conclusion about the harm suffered by the first complainant was incorrect because no victim impact statement was provided. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the psychologist's report indicated he lacked insight into the inappropriateness of his behaviour and required education and counselling, neither of which he had undertaken prior to sentencing. The court considered these arguments alongside the nature and circumstances of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in concluding that the first complainant had suffered harm, as this could be reasonably inferred from the nature of the offence and the evidence presented. The court also noted that the lack of a victim impact statement did not preclude a finding of harm. Regarding the sentence, the court held that it was not manifestly excessive. The judge had considered the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation, and the sentence reflected a balanced approach to these considerations. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant interference.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.