R v Hasanovic

In the case of R v Hasanovic, the appellant was convicted on three separate indictments of various offences, including grievous bodily harm with intent. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, with a global sentence imposed. The longest term of imprisonment was nine years for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The primary judge indicated that the appropriate sentence for this offence was eight years but increased the sentence to nine years to reflect the overall criminality of all the offences. A serious violent offender declaration was also made. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the parole eligibility date was delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the appellant been sentenced to cumulative sentences for each group of offences in the separate indictments. The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing and the appellant's overall criminality. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the parole eligibility date was not delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the appellant been sentenced to cumulative sentences. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the appellant's overall criminality. The court noted that the primary judge had considered the appropriate sentence for the grievous bodily harm with intent offence to be eight years but had increased the sentence to nine years to reflect the overall criminality of all the offences. The court found that this was an appropriate sentence and that the parole eligibility date was not delayed beyond that which would have been attained had the appellant been sentenced to cumulative sentences. The appeal against sentence was refused, and leave to appeal was denied.