Legal Research
Cases
Alameddine v R

Alameddine v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 317 10 October 2006

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Alameddine v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 317

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/1490

HEARING DATE(S): 25 August 2006

DECISION DATE: 10/10/2006

PARTIES:
Abdel Alameddine v Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Kirby J Hislop J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/21/0118

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney ADCJ

COUNSEL:
P. Barrett (Crown)
C. Smith (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
S. Etherington (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SENTENCE
OFFENDER ALLOWS HIS PREMISES TO BE USED FOR AMPHETAMINE MANUFACTURE
HIMSELF AN ADDICT
WHEN ARREST IMMINENT OFFENDER ACCIDENTALLY CAUSES LABORATORY TO EXPLODE
SERIOUS INJURIES (BURNS) SUFFERED
LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
EXTRA CURIAL PUNISHMENT
NO PRINCIPLE DENYING THAT MITIGATION AVAILABLE EVEN IF INJURIES SELF INFLICTED AND CONNECTED WITH OFFENCE
OTHER GROUNDS INVOLVING NO POINT OF PRINCIPLE
EXCESSIVE TOTAL TERM BUT NON PAROLE PERIOD IRREDUCIBLE

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
APPEAL ALLOWED
RESENTENCED

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/1490
GROVE J
KIRBY J
HISLOP J
10 October 2006

ABDEL HAMID ALAMEDDINE v REGINA

Judgment

GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Viney A/DCJ at Parramatta District Court on 12 December 2005. The notice of appeal was lodged on 20 June 2006 and the reason for delay has been explained in documentation provided by the Legal Aid Commission and the necessary extension of time for filing the notice of appeal should be granted.
The applicant pleaded guilty to counts of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine and possession of a precursor, pseudoephedrine, intended for use in such manufacture. His Honour imposed sentences, on the first count, of imprisonment for a total of four years with a non parole period of eighteen months and on the second count, to a term of imprisonment of eighteen months to be served concurrently with a non parole period on the first count. It will later appear in what circumstances the commencement date of both sentences was fixed as the day of imposition namely 12 December 2005.
There was an agreed statement of facts as follows:
“1. On Friday 29th November 2002 the Accused was a home detainee residing at his premises at 46 Anthony St Blacktown. The Accused at the time was serving a five months home detention sentence for driving offences, and was supervised by a Probation and Parole officer Patricia BOWDITCH on a regular basis.
2. The Accused had been late in returning home to his address, and another possible breach had been reported to Mrs BOWDITCH. Mrs. BOWDITCH spoke to the accused by telephone and told him that she would be attending his home to discuss the breach, and she directed him to remain at his house.
3. Mrs BOWDITCH arrived at about 5.30 pm and she spoke to the accused and his girlfriend. Mrs BOWDITCH believed that the accused was under the influence of amphetamine and she told him that she had decided to search the premises. This was within her powers as the supervisor of…

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 [2006] NSWCCA 317
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 317
Decision Date: 10 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Alameddine, was convicted of multiple drug-related offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The primary dispute arose from the sentencing process and the subsequent appeal against the length of the sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mr. Alameddine had allowed his premises to be used for the manufacture of amphetamines, a serious criminal activity. The case involved the intersection of criminal law and sentencing principles, particularly focusing on the extent of the punishment and whether it was appropriate given the circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were the principles guiding sentencing in cases where the offender's injuries were self-inflicted and connected with the offence. The court had to consider whether mitigation was available in such circumstances and whether the total term of imprisonment was excessive. Additionally, the court examined other grounds of appeal that did not involve points of principle. The central question was whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offence and the offender's personal circumstances.

The court found that there was no principle denying that mitigation was available even if the injuries were self-inflicted and connected with the offence. It concluded that while the injuries were severe and had long-term consequences, they did not preclude the possibility of a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court further noted that the offender had suffered extra-curial punishment, which should be taken into account. Regarding the other grounds of appeal, the court found no substantial miscarriage of justice. However, it did conclude that the total term of imprisonment was excessive. The court ordered a re-sentencing, reducing the overall term to ensure it was proportionate to the offence and the offender's personal circumstances.

Orders