NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: R v Terkmani [2009] NSWCCA 142
HEARING DATE(S): 29 April 2009
JUDGMENT DATE: 11 May 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Buddin J at 2; Price J at 3
DECISION: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING - CROWN APPEAL - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - whether correct maximum penalty taken into account - offence contrary to s 112(2) of Crimes Act - whether error in characterisation of objective seriousness of offence - whether general deterrence taken into account - whether threatened use of a weapon taken into account as an aggravating factor
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 112(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A, s 21A(2)(c), s 9
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048 MLP v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 271 R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 140 CASES CITED : R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 166 Regina v Joel Tory; Regina v Luke Tory [2006] NSWCCA 18 Regina v Millar [2005] NSWCCA 202 Regina v Price [2005] NSWCCA 285 Regina v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
Crown (Applicant) Abdullah Terkmani (Respondent)
PARTIES:
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/14794
COUNSEL: P Miller (Crown) M Ramage QC (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/14794
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Cogswell SC DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 November 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2007/1479
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