Moussa v The King

[2024] VSCA 113

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal
4. › Parity principle
5. › Co-offenders sentenced for attempted home invasion
6. › Whether sentencing judge erred in finding applicant's role 'as significant' as armed co-offenders who directly confronted victim
7. › Whether differences in criminal history and rehabilitation prospects should be reflected in head sentence or only non-parole period
8. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 321M
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal
4. › Resentencing
5. › Applicant resentenced on appeal
6. › Factors in mitigation
7. › Limited criminal history
8. › Good prospects of rehabilitation
9. › Hardship in custody due to death of parent
10. › Markovic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589, applied

Quick Take

Differences in rehabilitation prospects and criminal history between co-offenders must be reflected in the head sentence, not confined to the non-parole period, and a getaway driver's role is distinguishable from that of armed co-offenders who directly engage in confrontation.

Case Details

Citation[2024] VSCA 113

CourtVSCA

JurisdictionVictoria

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on20

2023Minutolo v The KingVSCA 300
2023DPP v MoussaVCC 1415
2023Kellway (a pseudonym) v The KingVSCA 109
2023Case (a pseudonym) v The KingVSCA 12
and 16 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in