Belhaj v The King - [2025] VSCA 174

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0134

MOHAMMED BELHAJ	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BOYCE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 174
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Belhaj (County Court of Victoria, Judge Allen, 27 June 2024)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – Possession of cocaine – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – Failing to provide information or assistance to police officer – Total effective sentence of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 3 years – Whether reasonably arguable that individual sentences, orders for cumulation, total effective sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive – Significant mitigatory factors applicable to applicant – High objective gravity of offending – Not reasonably arguable that sentences manifestly excessive – Application refused.

Barbaro v The Queen [2021] VSCA 277; Parks v The Queen [2017] VSCA 232; Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen (2017) 268 A Crim R 1, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicants:		Mr R Nathwani SC
Respondent:		Mr JH Shaw with Mr J Gullaci (solicitor)
Solicitors
Applicants:	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BOYCE JA:

Introduction

The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to the following charges: a charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence in not less than a commercial quantity (methylamphetamine); a charge of possession of a drug of dependence (cocaine), a charge of dealing in proceeds of crime — $40,000 — in the knowledge that this money was the proceeds of crime, and a related summary offence of failing to comply with a direction that the applicant provide a personal identification number access code for two electronic devices.
The applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment M10419197.1
1	Trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) — commercial quantity[1]	25 years	4 years and 6 months	Base
2	Possession of a drug of dependence (cocaine)[2]	5 years	10 months	3 months
3	Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime[3]	15 years	1 year and 6 months	6 months
Related Summary Offences
7	Failing to provide information or assistance to a police officer[4]	2 years	6 months	1 month
Total Effective Sentence:		5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		3 years
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		249 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years
Other Relevant Orders		Forfeiture and disposal orders

[1]Contrary to s 71AA(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (‘Drugs Act’).

[2]Contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs Act.

[3]Contrary to s 194(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘Crimes Act’).

[4]Contrary to s 365AAA(4) of the Crimes Act.

The…

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 Belhaj v The King

Details

AGLC: Belhaj v The King [2025] VSCA 174
Case: [2025] VSCA 174
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Belhaj v The King involved an application for leave to appeal against a sentence determined by a single judge. The applicant, Belhaj, had been convicted of multiple serious drug-related offences, including trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, possession of cocaine, knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, and failing to provide information or assistance to a police officer. The trial judge imposed a total effective sentence of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The central issue in this appeal was whether it was reasonably arguable that the individual sentences, the orders for cumulation, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The court considered the significant mitigatory factors applicable to Belhaj, as well as the high objective gravity of the offending. In examining the sentences, the court referred to Barbaro v The Queen and Parks v The Queen, which established that an appeal against sentence would only be entertained if it was reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that while there were significant mitigatory factors, the high objective gravity of the offences meant that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused as it was not reasonably arguable that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful balance of the aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigatory factors included Belhaj's early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, but these were weighed against the seriousness of the crimes and the harm caused. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, leading to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.

Orders