Site Logo

Naizmand v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 25

appeal against sentence — five counts of breaching a control order contrary to s 104.27 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed four years’ imprisonment with 3 year non-parole period — control order issued on basis that offender part of group that supported theology and activities of Islamic State — group considered willing and able to commit terrorist act — offender closely connected to activities of relative charged with terrorist offences — offender did not challenge findings of sentencing judge or argue aggregate sentence excessive — sole ground of appeal whether sentencing judge took into account utilitarian considerations when allowing discount for guilty plea — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — reference to saving need for witnesses exemplified subjective willingness, not utilitarian value consideration — sentencing judge in error in not considering utilitarian value of guilty plea — Court obliged to exercise sentencing discretion afresh — objective seriousness — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — objective seriousness of offender’s deliberate and repeated defiance of control orders, coupled with need for re-sentencing exercise to reflect continuing need for general and specific deterrence, dictates that no lesser sentence warranted in law — leave to appeal granted — appeal dismissed
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions