Sadiq v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 64

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0165

SHAMEER SADIQ	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TATE and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 February 2017 and 22 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	Delivered ‘on the papers’
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 64
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sadiq (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hannan, 26 July 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Renewal of application for leave to appeal against sentence – Manifest excess - Reckless conduct endangering life – Negligently causing serious injury by driving – Total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment – Non parole period of four years – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
Mr S Sadiq in person
For the Respondent	Mr M D Phillips	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TATE JA
PRIEST JA:

This is an application by Shameer Sadiq (‘Sadiq’) for leave to appeal against sentence. It is to be determined by the Court of Appeal constituted by at least two judges pursuant to s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Leave to appeal was refused by a single judge (Whelan JA) on 25 November 2016.[1]
[1]Sadiq v The Queen [2016] VSCA 294.

Procedural matters – initial adjournment

Sadiq is unrepresented. This application initially came on for hearing before us on 24 February 2017. Sadiq sought an adjournment on the basis that he had some prospects of obtaining legal representation. He had been legally represented in the application before Whelan JA which had been determined ‘on the papers’. A comprehensive written case in support of his application had been prepared by counsel assisted by a firm of solicitors. However, Sadiq sought an oral hearing of his application before two judges and was no longer legally represented, although his written case remained before the Court. The Crown did not oppose an adjournment. In those circumstances, we granted an adjournment and fixed the matter for hearing on 22 March 2017. The Court told Sadiq unequivocally that the matter would proceed on 22 March 2017 and that no further adjournments would be granted.

On 22 March 2017 the application returned before the Court. Sadiq sought a further adjournment. He informed the Court that he had contacted numerous law firms and Victoria Legal Aid and very recently one law firm had responded positively. However, there was no representative from the law firm in Court and no documentation of any kind to support the prospect that the law firm might give Sadiq some assistance. The Crown opposed a further adjournment. In those circumstances, the Court refused to grant a further adjournment and the matter proceeded. Principal among our reasons for refusing a further adjournment was the fact that the Court had before it — as did the judge who initially refused leave — the comprehensive written case drawn by counsel, which fully articulated such arguments as could sensibly have been agitated in support of Sadiq’s application.

Sadiq addressed 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 Sadiq v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sadiq v The Queen [2017] VSCA 64
Case: [2017] VSCA 64
Decision Date: 27 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sadiq, appealed against his sentence for recklessly endangering life and negligently causing serious injury by driving. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the original sentence, which amounted to a total effective term of six years and six months with a non-parole period of four years, constituted a manifest excess. Sadiq argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe in comparison to similar cases and thus warranted reconsideration.

The court examined the principles governing sentence appeals, particularly the concept of a manifest excess. It considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the culpability of the appellant, and the deterrent and rehabilitative purposes of sentencing. The court also reviewed the totality of the circumstances, including the impact of the offences on the victims, to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, reflecting a balanced approach considering all relevant factors.

The High Court held that the sentence was not so severe as to amount to a manifest excess. It acknowledged the serious nature of the offences but determined that the sentence was proportionate and appropriately reflected the culpability and the need for deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and refrained from interfering with the trial judge’s assessment unless there was a clear and unequivocal error. Consequently, Sadiq’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders