Legal Research
Cases
Rezaee v The King

Rezaee v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 237 23 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0054

MOHAMMED REZAEE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST ACJ and BOYCE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 237
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Rezaee [2025] VCC 170 (Judge Lauritsen)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Home invasion – Theft of motor vehicles and other items – Total effective sentence of 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 12 months – Applicant assisted authorities against co- offenders – Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to account for risk to applicant in custody due to the assistance – No error made by sentencing judge – Whether sentences manifestly excessive in light of mitigatory factors – Not reasonably arguable that sentences manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Haamid (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 330; Mejia (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 141; Scerri v The Queen (2010) 206 A Crim R 1; Nguyen v The Queen (2011) 31 VR 673, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J Lavery with Ms EA Byrt
Respondent:		Mr JH Shaw
Solicitors
Applicant:	Chester Metcalfe & Co
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST ACJ
BOYCE JA:

Introduction

The applicant pleaded guilty on 26 November 2024 to one charge of home invasion, two charges of theft of a motor vehicle and one charge of theft. He also pleaded guilty to one charge of driving whilst disqualified. On 24 February 2025 the applicant was sentenced as follows.

Charge	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Home invasion[1]	25 years	18 months	Base
2	Theft of motor vehicle[2]	10 years	6 months	2 months
3	Theft of motor vehicle[3]	10 years	6 months	2 months
4	Theft[4]	10 years	1 month	Nil
Related Summary Offences
6	Drive whilst disqualified	240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment	14 days	Nil
Total Effective Sentence:		1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		12 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		51 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Disqualified from obtaining any licence or permit for 12 months from 24 February 2025; 2. Compensation in the sum of $2,906.33; and 3. Recorded pursuant to s 5(2AB) Sentencing Act 1991, that the Court has imposed a less severe sentence due to the accused’s undertaking to assist law enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of an offence.

[1]Contrary to s 77A of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘Crimes Act’).

[2]Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act.

[3]Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act.

[4]Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. His proposed grounds of appeal are as follows:
Ground 1 The learned sentencing judged erred…

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 Rezaee v The King

Details

AGLC: Rezaee v The King [2025] VSCA 237
Case: [2025] VSCA 237
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rezaee, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria, following his conviction for involvement in a home invasion, theft of motor vehicles and other items. Rezaee received a total effective sentence of 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months. He contended that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the risk to him in custody due to his assistance against co-offenders, and that the sentences were manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in not considering the risk to the applicant in custody, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court held that there was no error made by the sentencing judge in failing to account for the risk to the applicant in custody due to his assistance against co-offenders. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's assistance but determined it was not a significant mitigating factor. The court also found that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentences were manifestly excessive in light of the mitigating factors. The court noted that the applicant's involvement in the crime was serious and the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offending.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that there was no error made by the sentencing judge and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the seriousness of the applicant's offending and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders