NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: El-Chaar v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 16 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 24 January 2007
JUDGMENT DATE: 24 January 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Buddin J at 54; Hislop J at 55
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 24 January 2007
DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING – whether manifestly excessive sentence imposed – differences in amounts involved in individual offences not so overwhelming as to require differentiation in sentence - SENTENCING – whether insufficient weight given to motivation for offence – financial difficulties no answer to commission of offence - duress may constitute mitigating factor on sentence – duress taken into account – no error in approach of trial judge in not differentiating offences where duress involved – leading "the high life" as motivation for offence
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(3) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.1, 134.1, 134.1(1)
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Oblach (2005) 65 NSWLR 75 Regina v Liu [2005] NSWCCA 378
PARTIES: Joseph El-Chaar (Appellant) Regina (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1930
COUNSEL: C Pike (Appellant) L Crowley (Crown)
SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/053
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ
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