NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Merheb v R [2021] NSWCCA 224 Hearing dates: 23 June 2021 Date of orders: 17 September 2021 Decision date: 17 September 2021 Before: Payne JA at [1]; Price J at [2]; Wright J at [3] Decision: 1. The applicant is refused leave to add proposed ground 3 as a ground of appeal. 2. The applicant has leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2. 3. The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — application for leave to appeal — whether failure to reflect special circumstances having regard to overall time to be spend in custody — whether manifest excess — application of comparable cases and sentencing statistics — no error established CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence — application for leave to add ground of appeal raising error by sentencing for an offence to which the applicant did not plead guilty— where relevant provision merely misidentified on one occasion and no other error — leave to add ground of appeal refused Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112, 113, 117, 192E Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 53A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5 Cases Cited: A103 v R [2015] NSWCCA 210 AM v R [2020] NSWCCA 101 Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 CM v R [2020] NSWCCA 136 Donn v R [2010] NSWCCA 20 Dudgeon v R [2014] NSWCCA 301 Flick v R [2012] NSWCCA 170 GP v R [2017] NSWCCA 200 Jackson v R [2021] NSWCCA 15 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528 Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88 Lonsdale v R [2020] NSWCCA 267 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 R v Andrews [2005] NSWCCA 199 R v Byrne [2005] NSWCCA 141 R v Merheb [2020] NSWDC 385 R v Mougin [2005] NSWCCA 146 Rizk v R [2020] NSWCCA 291 Strickland v R; O'Connor v R [2011] NSWCCA 166 Vandeventer v R [2013] NSWCCA 33 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Matthew Thomas Merheb (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: R Rajalingam (Applicant) E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
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