R v Taskin - [2015] NSWDC 61

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taskin [2015] NSWDC 61
Hearing dates: 17/12/2014; 30/01/2015
Decision date: 04 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
1st offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year.
2nd offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months
Related offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month.

Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Browne v R [2013] NSW CCA 44
Cicekdag v R, [2007] NSWCCA 218
Clay v R [2007] NSWCCA 106
DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSW CCA 194
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
R v Lattouf (unreported) NSWCCA 12/12/1996
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hemsley [2004] NSW CCA 228
R v Renshaw [2012] NSWCCA 91
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Talat Taskin - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Brasch - Offender

File Number(s): 2013/241542 & 2013/261299

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Talat Taskin appears today for sentence in relation to three offences, two indictable matters which are to be dealt with in this Court as such and a third matter on a s 166 Certificate. The two indictable offences are offences of demand property in company with menace and robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon which offences were committed in the early hours of 7 August 2013.
The demand property in company with menace is an offence contrary to s 99(2) Crimes Act. It has a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. It has no standard non parole period I am informed. The armed robbery matter contrary to s 97(1) Crimes Act has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Again it has no standard non parole period.
The related offence for which the offender is to be sentenced is an offence of possessing on 8 August 2013, the date as I understand it the prisoner was arrested, a prohibited drug, to wit cannabis leaf of something less than a gram consistent with personal use. I propose in relation to the related offence, bearing in mind the prisoner will be sentenced to a further term of custody, rather than fine him, which might otherwise be an appropriate penalty, to impose a relatively short term of imprisonment which will be concurrent with one of the terms of imprisonment that I am required to impose.
The prisoner is a co-accused of a man I sentenced on 18 December 2014, Mr Chaker. Mr Chaker pleaded guilty to the same offences with which this prisoner is concerned and to be sentenced for today. Mr Chaker was committed for sentence to the District Court and in respect to the sentences imposed upon him…

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 Taskin

Details

AGLC: R v Taskin [2015] NSWDC 61
Case: [2015] NSWDC 61
Decision Date: 04 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taskin, the appellant faced sentencing in the Supreme Court of Queensland for multiple criminal offences. Taskin was convicted on three counts: one for a first offence, another for a second offence, and a third for a related offence. The nature of the offences was such that they warranted serious consideration of sentencing principles, including the gravity of the crimes and the appellant's criminal history.

The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for each of the three offences. Key issues included the appropriate length of imprisonment for each offence, the determination of non-parole periods, and the need to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing articulated in relevant case law, including the need for proportionality and consistency in sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously evaluated the circumstances of each offence and the appellant's background. The court found that the first offence warranted a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year. For the second offence, a sentence of 3 years and 6 months was deemed appropriate, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months. The related offence resulted in a sentence of 1 month imprisonment. The court emphasised the need to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also considering the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

The court's final orders reflected the detailed sentencing analysis, ensuring that the sentences imposed were commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the offences. The appellant was sentenced to the specified terms of imprisonment and non-parole periods for each of the three offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1st offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year.

2nd offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months

Related offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Taskin [2015] NSWDC 61
Hearing dates:	17/12/2014; 30/01/2015
Decision date:	04 February 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	1st offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year. 2nd offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months Related offence - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Browne v R [2013] NSW CCA 44 Cicekdag v R, [2007] NSWCCA 218 Clay v R [2007] NSWCCA 106 DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSW CCA 194 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60 R v Lattouf (unreported) NSWCCA 12/12/1996 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Hemsley [2004] NSW CCA 228 R v Renshaw [2012] NSWCCA 91 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Talat Taskin - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Brasch - Offender
File Number(s):	2013/241542 & 2013/261299