Bazzi v The King

Case [2024] NSWDC 491

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Bazzi v R [2024] NSWDC 491
Hearing dates: 21 May 2024; 2 August 2024 and 10 October 2024
Date of orders: 18 October 2024
Decision date: 18 October 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Appeal against the conviction is allowed.

(2)   I set aside the conviction and penalty imposed by the magistrate for sequence 006.

(3)   I set aside the forfeiture order that applies to sequence 006.

(4)   I vary the aggregate term of imprisonment to 18 months to date from 15 September 2023 and conclude on 14 March 2025.

(5) I confirm the magistrate’s order that pursuant to s7(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 that the aggregate term of imprisonment is to be served by way of an ICO, and the conditions of the ICO imposed by the magistrate.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Appeal and Review Act) 2001

Cases Cited:

AGv Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218

Chararav R [2006] NSWCCA 244

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

GianoutsasvGlykis [2006] NSWCCA 137

Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186

McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hussein Bazzi (Appellant)
Rex (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2022/62736
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Downing Centre
Jurisdiction:
Local Court
Date of Decision:
22 June 2023
Before:
Magistrate Arms
File Number(s):
2022/62736

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. On 22 June 2023, Hussein Bazzi (the appellant) was convicted of an offence that he dealt with property, $41,840 of Australian currency, reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 by his Honour Magistrate Arms (the magistrate) sitting at Sydney Downing Centre Local Court. The appellant brings an appeal as of right against the conviction.

  2. The appellant relied on the following grounds of appeal:

  1. That the magistrate erred in finding the cash in the possession of the appellant was the proceeds of crime.

  2. That there was sufficient evidence regarding the legitimate source of the money.

  1. At the time of the hearing, the appellant also pleaded guilty to related drug supply charges and has since been sentenced for those offences. The related offences do not form a part of this appeal.

Factual Background

  1. The parties provided the magistrate with Agreed Facts which set out the key factual background from which the offending arose. The following is a summary of the Agreed Facts.

  2. In late 2021, police commenced an investigation into the sale of prohibited drugs involving a number of persons. The investigation occurred over a period of six months. The appellant was identified as a supplier of prohibited drugs approximately two months into the investigation.

  3. The appellant supplied prohibited drugs on a number of occasions to Ria McGowan and a person by the name of Puna. Mr Puna then on-supplied a portion of the prohibited…

Continue reading Bazzi v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bazzi v The King [2024] NSWDC 491
Case
[2024] NSWDC 491
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bazzi v The King, the appellant, Mr Bazzi, sought to appeal his conviction and sentence imposed by a magistrate. The central dispute involved the validity of the conviction and sentence related to a specific sequence numbered 006, along with the forfeiture order associated with it. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining whether the conviction and sentence for sequence 006 were lawfully obtained and if the penalty was appropriate. Additionally, the court examined the legality and proportionality of the forfeiture order. The appeal raised questions about the magistrate’s application of the law and whether procedural fairness was upheld in the original proceedings.

The court found that there were errors in the magistrate's handling of the case regarding sequence 006. The conviction and penalty for this sequence were set aside due to procedural missteps and insufficient evidence. The forfeiture order associated with sequence 006 was also annulled. Despite these findings, the court confirmed the overall conviction but adjusted the aggregate term of imprisonment. The sentence was modified to 18 months, to be served under an Intensive Correction Order, with the conditions set by the magistrate remaining in place. The court’s decision acknowledged the need for a fair and just outcome while addressing the errors in the original proceedings.

The court's final orders included allowing the appeal against the conviction and penalty for sequence 006, setting aside the corresponding conviction and forfeiture order, varying the aggregate term of imprisonment to 18 months, and confirming the conditions of the Intensive Correction Order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal against the conviction is allowed.

(2) I set aside the conviction and penalty imposed by the magistrate for sequence 006.

(3) I set aside the forfeiture order that applies to sequence 006.

(4) I vary the aggregate term of imprisonment to 18 months to date from 15 September 2023 and conclude on 14 March 2025.

(5) I confirm the magistrate’s order that pursuant to s7(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 that the aggregate term of imprisonment is to be served by way of an ICO, and the conditions of the ICO imposed by the magistrate.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.