Baladjam v R [2018] NSWCCA 304

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Baladjam v R [2018] NSWCCA 304 Hearing dates: 8 August 2018 Date of orders: 21 December 2018 Decision date: 21 December 2018 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [282]; Fagan J at [283] Decision: (1) Extend the time for filing an application for leave to appeal to 1 May 2018.

(2) Grant the applicant leave to appeal.

(3) Dismiss the appeal.

(4) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), order that paragraphs [70]-[72], [239]-[240] and the last sentence of paragraph [243] of this judgment be suppressed until further order on the grounds contained in s 8(1)(c) of that Act.

(5) Order (4) is to apply throughout the Commonwealth. Catchwords: SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence – Powers of court – application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence filed over nine years after sentence delivered – whether an extension of time should be granted

SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Co-offenders – Parity – applicant originally charged on indictment for conspiracy with other alleged co-offenders – applicant and another one of the alleged co-offenders later pleaded guilty to charges which did not allege conspiracy – whether applicant and the other person were co-offenders for the purpose of sentencing on those charges

SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence – Fresh or new evidence – applicant sought to rely upon evidence which was said to demonstrate error in the assessment of likely conditions of custody by sentencing judge – whether evidence admissible Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Cases Cited: Alvarez v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 33 Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v MHK (No 1) (2017) 52 VR 272; [2017] VSCA 157 Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 Elomar v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 303 Grabovac v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 100 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Gurney v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 48 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Khoury v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 118 Lodhi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 360 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29 Mansaray v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 16 Mulato v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 282 Mun v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 234 R v A [2004] NSWCCA 292 R v Araya [2005] NSWCCA 283 R v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162 R v Martin [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 477 R v Munday [1981] 2 NSWLR 177 R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47 R v Touma [2008] NSWSC 1475 R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342 Turkmani v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 186 Tyler v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 247 Why v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 101 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Xiao v The Queen (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bradley Umar Sariff Baladjam (applicant) The Crown (respondent) Representation: Counsel: E Ozen (applicant) W Abraham QC with Y Shariff (respondent)