Legal Research
Cases
Al-Hassan v The King

Al-Hassan v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 120 15 August 2025

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: Al-Hassan v R [2025] NSWCCA 120
Hearing dates: 16 April 2025
Date of orders: 15 August 2025
Decision date: 15 August 2025
Before: Wright J at [1]
Hamill J at [2]
Chen J at [72]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Allow the appeal for the limited purpose of adjusting the commencement date of the sentence imposed on sequence 1 but otherwise dismiss the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed on sequence 1 and in lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 14 months commencing on 26 July 2023 and expiring on 25 September 2024.
(4) Confirm the single non-parole period of 5 years for sequences 1 and 11 commencing on 26 July 2023 and expiring on 25 July 2028.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL APPEALS – appeal against sentence – fact finding – importation of marketable quantity of cocaine – “rolled up” charge involving three consignments – where co-offender disposes of one consignment – threat to kill co-offender – act to influence witness – whether Judge erred in calculating quantity of missing consignment – where offender referred to quantity in intercepted call – no evidence of purity of drug – where offender referred to “pure coke” – whether Judge made finding of exact quantity – whether error (if established) material – whether safe to act on offender’s disclosures – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt IB
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(2)(j)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 307.2(1), 474.15(1)

Cases Cited:
Aiga v R [2024] NSWCCA 175
Bidner v R [2024] NSWCCA 204
Clarke v R [2015] NSWCCA 232; (2015) 254 A Crim R 150
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Gibson v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 221
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Hordern v R [2019] NSWCCA 138; (2019) 278 A Crim R 353
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kim v R [2018] NSWCCA 68
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McLaughlin v R [2025] NSWCCA 13
Newman v R [2021] NSWCCA 101
Ocek v R [2023] NSWCCA 308
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Bui [2025] NSWCCA 114

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Almed Al-Hassan (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Conte-Mills (Applicant)
A Chhabra with D Wilcox (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Raihani Legal (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00220483
Publication restriction: N/A
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

17 May 2024

Before:

Arnott SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/00220483

HEADNOTE

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

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 Al-Hassan v The King

Details

AGLC: Al-Hassan v The King [2025] NSWCCA 120
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 120
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Al-Hassan, appealed against his sentence for importing a marketable quantity of cocaine, challenging both the fact-finding and the sentencing. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Al-Hassan was found guilty of being part of a syndicate that imported cocaine in three consignments. One consignment was disposed of by a co-offender, who also threatened to kill another co-offender and attempted to influence a witness. The court had to determine if the trial judge erred in calculating the quantity of the missing consignment, given the reference to the quantity in an intercepted call by the appellant. The court also had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence of the purity of the drug when the appellant referred to "pure coke." Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain whether the trial judge made a finding of the exact quantity and whether any error was material. The court also had to decide whether it was safe to act on the offender's disclosures and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge's approach to fact-finding was correct, despite the absence of evidence regarding the purity of the drug. The reference to "pure coke" did not provide enough information to establish the exact quantity of the drug. The court held that the trial judge did not make a finding of the exact quantity but rather estimated the quantity based on the evidence presented. The court found that any error in this estimation was not material because the sentence was based on the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's admissions. The court also held that it was safe to act on the offender's disclosures because they were consistent with other evidence and the appellant's conduct. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's criminal history.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in sentencing the appellant and that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence. The court also found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the appellant's culpability. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders