Raoof v The Queen

The applicant, Raoof, sought leave to appeal against his sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal was against his conviction for two counts of murder, with a non-parole period of 38 years. The primary focus of the appeal was the sentence's severity, particularly the disproportionate length of the non-parole period. Raoof contended that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the case's circumstances and the application of the principles set out in Verdins, which pertain to the severity of sentences for murder.

The court had to determine whether there was a specific error in the trial judge's findings concerning the applicant's motivation and whether there was an error in the application of Verdins principles. Additionally, the court examined if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the proposed grounds concerning Verdins and manifest excess were not arguable, as they did not establish a basis for the sentence to be deemed manifestly excessive. However, the proposed ground concerning motivation was deemed arguable. Despite this, the court found that there was no reasonable prospect of a less severe sentence being imposed if the appeal were allowed.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, as there was no reasonable prospect that the sentence would be reduced if the appeal were allowed. The court reasoned that the trial judge had carefully considered the case's circumstances and appropriately applied the Verdins principles in determining the sentence. The applicant's motivation did not warrant a different outcome, and thus, the application was dismissed.