Legal Research
Cases
AMZ v The Queen

AMZ v The Queen

Case [2017] NSWCCA 184 2 August 2017

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: AMZ v R [2017] NSWCCA 184
Hearing dates: 19 July 2017
Date of orders: 02 August 2017
Decision date: 02 August 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Price J at [28];
Schmidt J at [29]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2)   Appeal allowed.
(3)   The sentence imposed by Berman SC DCJ on 2 December 2011 is quashed.
(4)   In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years commencing 15 February 2011 and expiring on 14 February 2019 with a balance of term of 4 years expiring on 14 February 2023.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – five counts of supply a large commercial quantity of drugs and one count of participating in a criminal group – referred to Court of Criminal Appeal as a result of inquiry pursuant to Part 7 of Division 3 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) – parity issue identified – whether reduction in applicant’s sentence would produce a sentence which was erroneously lenient – appeal allowed – applicant re-sentenced.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 93T, 193C
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) – Pt 7 Div 3
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – s 25
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) –s 16
Cases Cited: AMZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 6
Application by AMZ pursuant to Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2017] NSWSC 432
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
Prelipceanu v R [2016] NSWCCA 280
R v Clarke [2013] NSWCCA 260
Saraya v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 63
Yazdani v R [2016] NSWCCA 194
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: AMZ – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lange – Applicant
T Smith – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
R Trimmer – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2011/50531
Publication restriction: Yes
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

2 December 2011

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/50531

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences and Background

In 2010 the applicant became involved in a large scale drug supply operation. He began by travelling from Perth to Sydney carrying large amounts of cash. In Sydney he met Mr Yazdani, who was the principal of the criminal syndicate. Yazdani asked the applicant to be a driver for him and also test drugs for him, both of which he did. The sentencing judge found that the applicant “acted as the personal assistant to the principal”. In this role, the applicant travelled around the country assisting with the transport of several separate deliveries of drugs (large commercial quantities of methylamphetamine and heroin), helped cut and package drugs and collected profits from interstate.

Berman SC DCJ found that the applicant did not get involved in drug dealing due to addiction, but for money.…

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 AMZ v The Queen

Details

AGLC: AMZ v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 184
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 184
Decision Date: 02 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, AMZ, appealed against his sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal. He had been found guilty of five counts of supplying a large commercial quantity of drugs and one count of participating in a criminal group. His appeal followed an inquiry under Part 7 of Division 3 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The primary issue before the court was whether the reduction in the appellant's sentence would result in a sentence that was erroneously lenient, considering the principles of parity.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's role in them, and the sentences imposed by other courts for similar offences. The court examined the principle of parity, which requires that sentences for similar offences should be broadly comparable, to ensure justice and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age, background, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the reduction in the appellant's sentence did indeed result in a sentence that was erroneously lenient when compared to sentences for similar offences. The court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant, taking into account the principle of parity and the need to ensure that the sentence was just and appropriate. The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific non-parole periods for each count, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold the principles of sentencing in Australia.

Orders