Legal Research
Cases
R v Ibrahim

R v Ibrahim

Case [2021] NSWCCA 296 10 December 2021

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: R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296
Hearing dates: 27 September 2021
Date of orders: 10 December 2021
Decision date: 10 December 2021
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Lonergan J at [5]
Dhanji J at [6]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – whether manifestly inadequate – pharmacist – no consent – age differential – objective gravity – otherwise good character – residual discretion – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61I, 61HE, 66A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 12, 21A, 44, 54
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 68A

Cases Cited:
Afghan-Baig v R [2018] NSWCCA 15
Aliabadi v R [2020] NSWCCA 224
Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (2004) 61 NSWLR 305; [2004] NSWCCA 303
Awraham v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 241
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 302
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Carroll v The Queen (2009) 254 ALR 379; [2009] HCA 13
Carter v R [2018] NSWCCA 138
CMB v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 568; [2001] NSWCCA 332
Cordeiro v R [2019] NSWCCA 308
Delaney v R; R v Delaney (2013) 230 A Crim R 581; [2013] NSWCCA 150
DPP (Cth) v Pratten [No 2] (2017) 94 NSWLR 194; [2017] NSWCCA 42
Elias v The Queen; Issa v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31
Elomar v R [2018] NSWCCA 224
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; (1994) 74 A Crim R 241
Galli v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 206
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293; (1977) 51 ALJR 749
Jung v R [2017] NSWCCA 24
Khanchitanon v R [2014] NSWCCA 204
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10
Lou v R [2021] NSWCCA 120
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Markovic v The Queen; Pantelic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589; [2010] VSCA 105
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
R v Andries Dijkstra [2019] NSWDC 776
R v Arvind (NSWCCA, 8 March 1996, unreported)
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Daley [2010] NSWCCA 223
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Edwards (1996) 90…

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 R v Ibrahim

Details

AGLC: R v Ibrahim [2021] NSWCCA 296
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 296
Decision Date: 10 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ibrahim, the appellant, a pharmacist, sought to appeal against his sentence for a crime involving sexual acts with a minor. The dispute arose from the severity of the sentence imposed, with the appellant arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the appellant's otherwise good character and the absence of physical injury or consent. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence reflected the objective gravity of the offence and the appellant's age differential with the victim. The court also considered the principles of residual judicial discretion in sentencing.

In assessing the appeal, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. It found that the sentence adequately reflected the objective gravity of the offence, taking into account the appellant's otherwise good character and the absence of physical injury or consent. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and did not require intervention. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders