Legal Research
Cases
Srikantharajah v R

Srikantharajah v R

Case [2012] NSWCCA 209 20 September 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Srikantharajah v R [2012] NSWCCA 209
Hearing dates: 9 August 2012
Decision date: 20 September 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
R A Hulme J at [2]
Schmidt J at [61]
Decision:
Leave to appeal allowed.
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal and new trial - appeal against sentence - mental condition of offender and general deterrence - whether accumulation of sentence resulted in a total term that was unreasonable
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited: Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
BT v R [2012] NSWCCA 128
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Benitez [2006] NSWCCA 21; (2006) 160 A Crim R 166
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
R v Hammond [2000] NSWCCA 540; (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Hilton [2005] NSWCCA 317; (2005) 157 A Crim R 504
R v Krempin [2003] NSWCCA 263; (2003) 142 A Crim R 56
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
Stewart v R [2012] NSWCCA 183
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Amalatheepan Srikantharajah (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr T Gartelmann (Applicant)
Ms H Wilson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Otto Stichter & Associates
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2009/48556
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-12-13 00:00:00

Before:

Sides DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/48556

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J.

R A HULME J: Mr Amalatheepan Srikantharajah (the applicant) was sentenced by his Honour Judge Sides QC in the District Court at Parramatta on 13 December 2010 for two offences of specially aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence. This is an offence contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which there is prescribed a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years and a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

In relation to each charge the serious indictable offence was intimidation, the aggravating circumstance was that the applicant was in company; and the circumstance of special aggravation that there was the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. The two offences concerned the one incident but grievous bodily harm was inflicted upon two victims.

There was a Form 1 document by which the applicant asked that, when he was sentenced in respect of the first count, his guilt in respect of an offence of intentionally or recklessly destroying property be taken into account.

The learned judge imposed a sentence on the first count of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years, dating from 1 July 2009. On the second count there was a sentence of 7 years with a…

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 Srikantharajah v R

Details

AGLC: Srikantharajah v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 209
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 209
Decision Date: 20 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant appealed against his sentence for drug trafficking. The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in a commercial quantity of cocaine and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the cumulative sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive and unreasonable. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the cumulative sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive and unreasonable, taking into account the appellant's mental condition and the need for general deterrence. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also considered the appellant's mental condition and whether it should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence.

The court held that the cumulative sentence imposed by the trial judge was not excessive or unreasonable. The court noted that the appellant was found guilty of a serious offence and that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such an offence. The court also noted that the appellant's mental condition was a mitigating factor that could be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence, but it did not excuse the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors when determining the appropriate sentence, and that the cumulative sentence imposed was not excessive or unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed. The original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders