R v Dabboussi

[2020] NSWCCA 111

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Crown appeal against sentence
4. › Accumulation and concurrence of sentences
5. › Separate serious offences of sexual intercourse without consent and reckless wounding
6. › Whether head sentence of one offence entirely subsumed in sentence of other offence reflected totality of criminality
7. › Whether accumulation of non-parole periods by two months manifestly inadequate
8. › Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 35(4), 61I
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › Application to separate offences committed on different occasions against different victims
5. › Limits on sentencing discretion as to degree of concurrence
6. › Whether degree of concurrence untenable
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Specific deterrence
4. › Whether failure to expressly mention specific deterrence constituted error
5. › Whether adverse subjective findings permitted inference that specific deterrence was considered
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Crown appeal
4. › Residual discretion not to intervene
5. › Whether sentence structure constituted affront to administration of justice
6. › Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D

Quick Take

Where an offender is sentenced for separate serious offences committed on different occasions against different victims, the degree of concurrence must adequately reflect the totality of the criminality. A sentence structure in which the head sentence for one serious offence is entirely subsumed within the head sentence for another, with only minimal accumulation of non-parole periods, may be untenable and constitute manifest inadequacy warranting intervention on Crown appeal.