Trad v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 56 11 March 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 194 A Crim R 20[2010] ALMD 4184

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Trad v R [2009] NSWCCA 56

HEARING DATE(S): 25 February 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Buddin J at 2; Price J at 3

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal against sentence be granted
2. Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - aggravated car-jacking and robberies in company - assessment of objective seriousness of offences - totality - sentences not manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 97(1), s 154C(2), s 154H(1)(a),
s 154J, s 188(1)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Barker, R v Gibson [2006] NSWCCA 20
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 140
R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Regina v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76

PARTIES: Hassan Trad
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/12737

COUNSEL: W C Terracini SC (Appellant)
L Babb SC (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/21/0203

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hughes DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 04/04/08

2007/12737

GROVE J
BUDDIN J
PRICE J
11 March 2009

Trad v R

Judgment

1 GROVE J: I agree with Price J.

2 BUDDIN J: I agree with Price J.

3 PRICE J: The appellant upon arraignment in the District Court on 4 February 2008 pleaded not guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 on an indictment but guilty to count 4. After a five-day trial, the jury found the appellant guilty of all the counts the subject of the trial. On 4 April 2008 the sentencing Judge imposed the following sentences:

Crimes Act

Count 4 (an offence of dishonestly interfering with a unique identifier contrary to s 154H(1)(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 Trad v R

Details

AGLC: Trad v R [2009] NSWCCA 56
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 56
Decision Date: 11 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Trad v The Queen involved the appellant, Trad, who was convicted for his involvement in a series of aggravated car-jackings and robberies while in the company of others. The trial court had sentenced Trad to a total of eight years and three months imprisonment. Trad appealed against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The primary issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences and in the application of the principle of totality. The Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

The Court considered the factors relevant to assessing the objective seriousness of the crimes, including the nature of the offences, the degree of premeditation, and the harm caused to the victims. The Court also examined the principle of totality, which requires that the cumulative sentence for multiple offences not be greater than the sum of the appropriate sentences for each individual offence. The Court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences and appropriately applied the principle of totality. The Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld Trad's appeal and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The Court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court's decision confirmed that the trial judge had appropriately assessed the objective seriousness of the offences and the principle of totality in determining the appropriate sentence for Trad.

Orders