Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Al Am Ali v R [2021] NSWCCA 281 Hearing dates: 19 November 2021 Date of orders: 19 November 2021 Decision date: 01 December 2021 Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]
Davies J at [2]
Wilson J at [54]Decision: (1) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – applicant pleaded guilty to possessing 1974 kilograms of tobacco knowing goods were imported with intent to defraud the revenue – one ground of appeal – whether his Honour failed to have regard to the requirements of s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when imposing sentence of full-time imprisonment – where sentencing judge failed to engage with submission of applicant’s counsel that consideration should be given to ICO – ground of appeal made out – re-sentence – where sentence of imprisonment appropriate given applicant had significant role in organised criminal activity – whether sentence should be served by an ICO – where ICO not appropriate as applicant due to be released on recognizance in less than three months – no lesser sentence warranted
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 66, 69
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233BABAD
Cases Cited: Abbas Elzein v R; Ahmad Elzein v R; Bilal Doughan v R [2021] NSWCCA 246
Blanch v R [2019] NSWCCA 304
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211
R v Edelbi [2021] NSWCCA 122
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ibrahim Al Am Ali (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
D Beaufils (Applicant)
D Jordan (Respondent)
Abbas Jacobs Lawyers (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/159038 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Citation:
Nil
- Date of Decision:
- 9 April 2021
- Before:
- North DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2019/159038
Judgment
-
BEECH-JONES CJ AT CL: In joining the orders made on 19 November 2021 dismissing the appeal I was satisfied that no lesser sentence was warranted in law (Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3)). I reached that state of satisfaction regardless of whether the consideration of whether to make an Intensive Correction Order in resentencing was determined having regard to the sentencing objectives in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (see R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 at [86] to [89]). I otherwise agree with the reasons of Davies J.
-
DAVIES J: On 19 November 2021 at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, the Court made orders granting leave to appeal but dismissing the appeal. Reasons were to be provided later. These are my reasons for joining in the orders of the Court.
-
The applicant…
Continue reading Al Am Ali v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Al Am Ali v R [2021] NSWCCA 281
- Case
- [2021] NSWCCA 281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately address the submission regarding the potential application of an ICO. The sentencing judge failed to engage with the argument that an ICO might be a suitable alternative to imprisonment, given the applicant’s significant role in the organised criminal activity. The court concluded that this omission constituted a failure to consider the requirements of section 66 of the Act, which mandates that the court must consider available sentencing options and choose the most appropriate one. Consequently, the ground of appeal was upheld. However, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment remained appropriate given the seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, as the applicant was due to be released on recognizance in less than three months, an ICO was deemed inappropriate, and no lesser sentence was warranted.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.