NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zreika v R [2022] NSWCCA 262 Hearing dates: 7 October 2022 Date of orders: 9 December 2022 Decision date: 09 December 2022 Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1] Davies at [2] Hamill J at [95] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Uphold the appeal in respect of the aggregate sentence. 3. Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 8 June 2021. In lieu, sentence the appellant to an aggregate sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment commencing 4 June 2020 and expiring 3 December 2023 with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months expiring 3 September 2022. The appellant is now eligible for parole. Catchwords: Crime – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – aggregate sentence for fraudulent conduct offences – dishonestly attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception – dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception - dishonestly intending to obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity – ss 134.2 and 135.1 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – manifest excess – where amounts involved were relatively small - where offending occurred over relatively short period of time and generally employed unsophisticated methods – where aggregate sentence manifestly excessive Crime – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge's intervention in course of evidence of applicant was excessive – where credibility of applicant was serious issue – where interventions appropriate – where no appearance of bias of pre-judgment Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 192E Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16BA Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10A Criminal Code (Cth) ss 134.2, 135.1, 145 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 166 Cases Cited: Ellis v R [2015] NSWCCA 262 Finnigan v R [2022] NSWCCA 181 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 R v Ryan [2002] NSWCCA 202; (2003) 141 A Crim R 403 Rami Mohamad v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 406 Zaky v R [2015] NSWCCA 161 Zaky v R (Cth) [2017] NSWCCA 141 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yousef Zreika (Applicant) The King (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Moutasallem (Applicant) A Chhabra & A Payten (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