Legal Research
Cases
Alameddine v R

Alameddine v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 232 18 September 2020

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232
Hearing dates: 27 April 2020
Decision date: 18 September 2020
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [202]; N Adams J at [211]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2)   Appeal allowed.
(3)   Quash the sentences imposed on 18 May 2018 and in lieu impose the following sentences:
(i) For the offence under s 101.4(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 6 years comprising a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months commencing on 15 February 2016 and expiring on 14 August 2020 with a balance of term of one year and 6 months commencing on 15 August 2020 and expiring on 14 February 2022.
(ii) For the offence of supplying a pistol contrary to s 51(1A) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 years comprising a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months commencing on 15 February 2018 and expiring on 14 August 2026 with a balance of term of 3 years and 6 months expiring on 14 February 2030.
(iii)   The earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 15 August 2026.
(4) Order pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) that publication of ground 5 of the grounds of appeal at [8], [161]-[175] above, the words in parenthesis in [178], the last sentence of [197] of this judgment, be prohibited until further order on the ground that it is necessary protect the safety of any person. This order is to take effect throughout the Commonwealth.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Terrorism offences – Possessing things connected with a terrorist act – Possessing revolver – Reckless as to connection of the thing to the preparation for a terrorist act
CRIME – Firearms offences – Supply loaded revolver to person who is not authorised to possess the pistol by a licence or permit.
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether miscarriage of justice by admission of Exhibit in the absence of an annexure to that statement
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in finding sympathetic towards Islamic State and motivated to commit the offences because of such sympathy
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in finding that disclosed to applicant that revolver was to be used for the purposes of a terrorist attack
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in sentencing applicant on basis that he knew revolver was to be used to shoot a person
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Multiple offences - Degree of accumulation between offences
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Manifest excess

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)

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 Alameddine v R

Details

AGLC: Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 232
Decision Date: 18 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Alameddine, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for terrorism-related offences, including possessing a firearm connected with a terrorist act, and supplying a loaded revolver to an unauthorised person. The Crown Court of Western Australia conducted the trial, and the appellant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence, raising several legal issues, including the admissibility of certain evidence, the sentencing judge's consideration of the appellant's motivations, and the overall fairness and proportionality of the sentence.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in admitting an exhibit without an annexure, which the appellant argued prejudiced his case. The court held that while the annexure was not ideal, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also reviewed the sentencing judge's assessment of the appellant's motivations and found no clear error in concluding that the appellant was sympathetic to the Islamic State and motivated by that sympathy. Regarding the revolver, the court determined that the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the appellant knew the revolver was to be used for a terrorist attack, based on the evidence presented.

The court further considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the degree of accumulation between the offences was not adequately justified, and the cumulative sentence was excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's role, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, affirming the trial judge's decision.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The appellant's arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence, the sentencing judge's findings, and the proportionality of the sentence were rejected. The court's reasoning demonstrated a careful analysis of the evidence and legal principles, leading to the conclusion that the trial and sentencing processes were fair and appropriate.

Orders