Bayssari v Regina - [2021] NSWCCA 235

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Bayssari v Regina [2021] NSWCCA 235
Hearing dates: 13 September 2021
Date of orders: 06 October 2021
Decision date: 06 October 2021
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Garling J at [2]
Bellew J at [80]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – general and specific deterrence – sentence imposed was available to sentencing Judge – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284; (2017) 96 NSWLR 633
R v Wong [2018] NSWCCA 20
Regina v Payne [2005] NSWCCA 84
Remington v R [2018] NSWCCA 98
Stavropoulos v R [2018] NSWCCA 12

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond Bayssari (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Moutasallem (Applicant)
C Curtis (Respondent
Solicitors:
Z Hajjar (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/163270
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

08 December 2020

Before:

Craigie SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/163270

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Garling J and with his Honour’s reasons.
GARLING J: Raymond Bayssari (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by Craigie SC DCJ (the “Judge”) in the District Court at Parramatta on 8 December 2020.
The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences. Both were offences against s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 of supplying a prohibited drug. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and a large fine. No standard non-parole period is fixed. The first offence involved the supply of 11.59g of methylamphetamine; the second offence involved the supply of 74.1g of gamma-butyrolactone (“GBL”).
On the first offence, the applicant asked the Court to take into account two further offences of possessing a prohibited drug contrary to s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, and the offence of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Sentences Imposed

The Judge imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months commencing on 4 April 2020 and concluding on 3 January 2023. He ordered that there be a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months which expires on 3 November 2021.
In accordance with the statute, the Judge allowed a discount of 5% for a plea of guilty for each offence. His Honour indicated a sentence for the first offence (including matters on the Form 1) of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, and a sentence of 1 year and 11 months for the second offence.

Appeal

The applicant advances one ground for his appeal, namely, that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Proceedings on Sentence

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 Bayssari v Regina

Details

AGLC: Bayssari v Regina [2021] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 06 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bayssari v Regina is a case where the defendant, Bayssari, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. The appeal was based on the contention that the sentence was excessive. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in the Australian court system. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the principles of general and specific deterrence, and whether the sentence was within the range of available sentences that the sentencing judge could have imposed.

The High Court examined the sentence imposed by the trial judge, assessing whether it was within the range of sentences available and whether it was appropriate in light of the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court considered the nature of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the impact of the crime on the victim and the community. The High Court determined that the sentence was within the range of available sentences and that it was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the relevant principles of sentencing.

The High Court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was based on the principle that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised their discretion within the bounds of the law. The High Court found that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and served the purposes of general and specific deterrence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial judge remained in place, and the defendant's appeal was unsuccessful. The High Court's decision reaffirms the importance of the principles of general and specific deterrence in sentencing and the discretion afforded to the trial judge in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders