Legal Research
Cases
Abdul v R

Abdul v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 18 15 February 2019

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Abdul v R [2019] NSWCCA 18
Hearing dates: 17 October 2018
Date of orders: 15 February 2019
Decision date: 15 February 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [53]; Price J at [54]
Decision:
Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Youth – applicant pleaded guilty to drug supply offences – applicant found to have directed activities of organisation distributing prohibited drugs while a young adult – whether the applicant was acting as an adult for the purpose of sentencing
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Assam v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 12
Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 219 A Crim R 369; [2011] VSCA 372
BP v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bullock v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 131
IS v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 116
KT v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 51
PC v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 137
R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178
Simkhada v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 284
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Azhar Abdul (applicant)
The Crown (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Barrow (applicant)
B Hatfield (respondent)
Solicitors:
M Ricci (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/161119
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

17 November 2017

Before:

King DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/161119

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Mr Azhar Abdul (the applicant) was charged with four counts of knowingly taking part in the supply of prohibited drugs, including cocaine, amphetamine, MDMA and MDA, and one count of knowingly directing the activities of a criminal group. At the time of the offences, the applicant was between 20 and 21 years old and was himself a regular user of prohibited drugs. There were other men who were charged with the applicant as co-offenders. The applicant pleaded guilty to each charge.

The sentencing judge found that there was “no evidence of anyone more senior or in control of the arrangements” than the applicant. He also found that it was the applicant who acted “as the entrepreneurial spruiker who negotiates prices, quantities, offers discounts for bulk or set[s] weekly order commitments” and that he was the “entrepreneurial force and prospective empire builder utilising the services of others to make deliveries”. In these circumstances, the sentencing judge found that the applicant was “clearly operating as an adult” despite his youth, but that he had “a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation and a low prospect of re-offending” if he ceased to use prohibited drugs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from his sentence. There were two main issues on appeal:

1 Whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to take into account the applicant’s youth in determining an appropriate sentence;

2 Whether the sentencing judge had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abdul v R

Details

AGLC: Abdul v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 18
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 18
Decision Date: 15 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abdul v R involved an appeal by the applicant, Abdul, against his sentence for drug supply offences. Abdul had pleaded guilty to being part of an organisation that distributed prohibited drugs. The central issue before the court was whether Abdul should be considered a youth or an adult when determining his sentence. The court had to assess whether Abdul, who had directed the activities of the drug distribution organisation, was acting as an adult for sentencing purposes.

The court addressed the issue by examining Abdul's age, maturity, and the nature of his involvement in the drug supply activities. The sentencing judge had considered Abdul's youth, but also noted that he had taken on a leadership role within the drug distribution organisation. The court was tasked with determining whether these factors warranted a more lenient sentence, or if Abdul should be held accountable as an adult due to his significant role in the criminal activities.

In its decision, the court found that while Abdul was a young adult at the time of the offences, his role as a leader within the drug distribution organisation meant he should be treated as an adult for sentencing purposes. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, particularly when they have taken on significant leadership roles in criminal activities. The appeal was dismissed, and Abdul's sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that Abdul's appeal against his sentence was dismissed. The original sentence was to stand, reflecting the court's view that Abdul should be treated as an adult for sentencing purposes due to his leadership role in the drug distribution organisation.

Orders