R v Jaafar

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 132 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
THOMAS JAAFAR

---

JUDGES: BROOKING, PHILLIPS and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 17 November 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17 November 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 112

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Attempted armed robbery.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr R.A. Elston P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant In person

BROOKING, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

Mr Jaafar, we are all of us glad to read that you are intent on rehabilitating yourself for the future, and we hope you will stay moving in that direction, but I am afraid to say that there is nothing which we can do for you. What has happened since you have been in prison is not relevant to us in considering whether the judge has made a mistake. Having regard to all the circumstances, including your previous convictions, we simply cannot say that the judge went wrong in giving you the sentence which he gave you. Therefore we must, and we now do, dismiss your application.

R. v. Jaafar g:\1998 vsca\a0112.doc

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jaafar, the appellant was convicted of attempted armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing it was excessive. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to assess the severity of the offence, the culpability of the appellant, and whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on them.

The court examined the nature of the attempted armed robbery and the appellant's role in the crime. It considered the appellant's level of involvement, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the potential harm that could have been caused if the crime had been completed. The court also assessed the appellant's background, including their age, criminal history, and any mitigating factors. After careful consideration, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court determined that the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the offence and took into account the appellant's personal circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court affirmed that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not constitute an error in principle.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

JUDGES:	BROOKING, PHILLIPS and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 November 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 November 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSCA 112

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R.A. Elston	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In person