Legal Research
Cases
R v Sukkar

R v Sukkar

Case [2011] NSWCCA 140 24 June 2011

Sentencing

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sukkar [2011] NSWCCA 140
Hearing dates: 30 March 2011
Decision date: 24 June 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Simpson J at [1], Davies J at [2] and Grove AJ at [59]
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Wells SC. In lieu, the Respondent is sentenced to a non-parole period of 10 months commencing 6 August 2010 expiring 5 June 2011 with balance of term of 2 years and 2 months to expire on 5 August 2013. Since the Respondent has already been released to parole it is not necessary to make the order under s 50(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - sentencing procedure - factual basis for sentence - facts found not to be inconsistent with jury verdict - joint criminal enterprise - different roles by co-offenders - manifest inadequacy of sentence - approach where offender already released on parole - increase in head sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Johnson v R; Moody v R [2010] NSWCCA 124
R v Cheung [2010] NSWCCA 244
R v Everett (1994) 181 CLR 295
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hernando (2002) 136 A Crim R 451
R v Hoschke [2001] NSWCCA 317
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49
R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186
R v Ronald John Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202
R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
R v Tsoukatos & Kyroglou [1999] NSWCCA 106
Regina v Darwiche & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1167
Regina v Rick Barry Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Simon Sukkar (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: J Pickering (Applicant)
J Van Aalst (Respondent)
J Hertz (Applicant)
Legal Aid Commission (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/42155
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2010-11-26 00:00:00

Before:

Wells DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/42155

Judgment

Simpson J: I agree with Davies J.

Davies J: On 6 August 2010 the Respondent stood trial before her Honour Judge Wells SC and a jury charged with an offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. He was found guilty. On 26 November 2010 he was sentenced by Judge Wells to a term of imprisonment for 2 years commencing 6 August 2010 with a non-parole period of 10 months with such non-parole period expiring on 5 June 2011. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years.

The Crown appeals against the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate.

The Crown case was one of a joint criminal enterprise with the co-offender Dean Kriticos. In short, the Respondent drove the motor vehicle in which Kriticos was a passenger, the Respondent waited in the…

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 Sukkar

Details

AGLC: R v Sukkar [2011] NSWCCA 140
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 140
Decision Date: 24 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sukkar involved the defendant, who was convicted of participation in a joint criminal enterprise. The dispute centred on the sentence imposed by the lower court and whether it was manifestly inadequate. The matter was brought before the court for review. The legal issues to be decided involved the adequacy of the sentence in relation to the role played by the defendant within the criminal enterprise and the appropriate approach to sentencing when the defendant has already been released on parole.

The court examined the sentencing procedure and the factual basis for the sentence, ensuring that the facts did not contradict the jury's verdict. It considered the different roles played by co-offenders in a joint criminal enterprise and the implications for sentencing. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the defendant's role and the seriousness of the crime. Given that the defendant had already been released on parole, the court adopted an approach that involved increasing the head sentence. This was deemed necessary to address the manifest inadequacy while also considering the defendant's release on parole.

The court concluded that the original sentence was insufficient and increased the head sentence to reflect the appropriate level of punishment for the defendant's role in the crime. The final orders included a revised sentence that was deemed to be more commensurate with the defendant's involvement in the joint criminal enterprise, ensuring that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's role within it.

Orders