Legal Research
Cases
R v Karim

R v Karim

Case [2024] NSWCCA 234 13 December 2024

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Karim [2024] NSWCCA 234
Hearing dates: 27 September 2024
Date of orders: 13 December 2024
Decision date: 13 December 2024
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Davies J at [106];
Campbell J at [107]
Decision:
(1)   Appeal allowed.
(2)   The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed and in lieu thereof:
(a)   The respondent is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 15 years imprisonment commencing 5 November 2021 and expiring on 4 November 2036, with a non-parole period of 10 years commencing 5 November 2021 and expiring on 4 November 2031.
(b)   The respondent will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — by Crown against inadequacy — two unrelated sets of offences — where no patent error in sentencing remarks — indicative sentences did not reflect objective seriousness — accumulation of sentences — aggregate sentence manifestly inadequate — respondent re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A
Crimes Act1900 (NSW), ss 33, 37, 61J, 93T, 193C, 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25A

Cases Cited:
CMB v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Greenv The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Nguyen v R (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17
R v AD [2020] NSWCCA 275
R v Hill [2020] NSWCCA 197
R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
R v King [2004] NSWCCA 444; 150 A Crim R 409
R v M A [2004] NSWCCA 92; 145 A Crim R 434
R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 137
R v Stephens [2024] NSWCCA 170
R v VR [2024] NSWCCA 91
R v Zolfonoon [2016] NSWCCA 250; 262 A Crim R 285
Scottv R [2020] NSWCCA 81
Tamer v R [2020] NSWCCA 333

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Appellant)
Ahmed Karim (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Millward / K James (Appellant)
P Strickland SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Karnib Saddik Law Firm (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/266657;
2022/196930
Publication restriction: Nil.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

03 June 2024

Before:

Hanley SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/266657;
2022/196930

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 3 June 2024, the respondent was…

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 Karim

Details

AGLC: R v Karim [2024] NSWCCA 234
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 234
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Karim saw the Crown appeal against the sentence given to the respondent, Karim, for two unrelated sets of offences. The appeal was based on the Crown's contention that the sentence was inadequate. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, where the central issue was whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court had to determine if the sentencing remarks contained any patent errors and whether the indicative sentences reflected the objective seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also considered whether the accumulation of sentences led to an aggregate sentence that was manifestly inadequate. The court examined the totality of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and the principles of sentencing in Australia.

The court found that while there were no patent errors in the sentencing remarks, the indicative sentences did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the crimes. The aggregate sentence was deemed manifestly inadequate when considering the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed for the two sets of offences. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the respondent, Karim, in line with the principles of sentencing and the gravity of the offences committed. The final orders of the court involved a re-sentencing process that took into account the cumulative impact of the offences.

Orders