NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Doudar v R [2021] NSWCCA 37 Hearing dates: 25 November 2020 Decision date: 18 March 2021 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Bellew J at [125]; Wright J at [126] Decision: (1) Leave to rely upon the fresh evidence relating to the applicant's treatment following the sentence hearing is refused. (2) Leave to appeal against sentence is allowed but the appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – accessory after the fact to murder – interference with evidence and assistance provided after the primary offence – whether sentencing judge erred in assessing objective gravity of the offence – whether there had been prior planning and arranging – whether open to sentencing judge to reject evidence called on behalf of the applicant that his experience in custody would be more onerous than that of the general prison population – whether his Honour adequately or at all took into account the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic – whether open to sentencing judge to substantially dismiss the applicant's subjective case – whether the applicant should have leave to rely upon fresh evidence as to his medical condition – appeal against sentence dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Cases Cited: AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 339 Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128 Doudar v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (unrep, Supreme Court (NSW), R A Hulme J, 17 April 2020) Hunt v R [2019] NSWCCA 118 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37; Khoury v R (2011) 209 A Crim R 509; [2011] NSWCCA 118 Khoury v R [2014] NSWCCA 272 McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 R v Doudar [2020] NSWSC 1262 R v Edwards (1990) A Crim R 510 R v Girard, Andrew John; R v Girard, Tessa Maree [2004] NSWCCA 170 R v Qutami (2001} 127 A Crim R 369; [2001] NSWCCA 353 Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 Turkmani v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 402; [2014] NSWCCA 186 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ahmad Doudar – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC/P Lange – Applicant K Jeffreys – Respondent Crown
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate