El-Ahmad v R

The applicant, El-Ahmad, appealed against the sentence imposed by the County Court for his involvement in the commercial supply and ongoing supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The applicant had a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for drug-related offences. He was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and had a history of drug-induced psychosis. The trial judge assessed the objective seriousness of the offence at below the mid-range and imposed a sentence that included a non-parole period of 12 years. El-Ahmad argued that the trial judge erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness, failed to adequately consider his medical conditions, and miscarried the sentencing discretion by imposing a sentence that was significantly harsher than that given to his co-offender. The Crown accepted that there was an error in the assessment of objective seriousness but argued that the sentence was not excessive and that the discount for the guilty plea should be reconsidered.

The Court of Appeal examined whether the trial judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, whether the applicant's medical conditions were adequately considered, and whether the sentencing discretion was miscarried. The Court found that there was indeed an error in the assessment of objective seriousness, as the trial judge had incorrectly applied the objective seriousness table. The Court also found that the applicant's medical conditions were not adequately considered in the sentencing process. The Court concluded that the sentencing discretion was miscarried due to the significant disparity in sentences between the applicant and his co-offender, which gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the County Court for re-sentencing. The Court further found that a 15 per cent discount for the guilty plea was appropriate given that the plea was entered on the day of the trial, rather than the 25 per cent discount permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

In re-sentencing the applicant, the County Court imposed a sentence with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months, reflecting the appropriate discount for the guilty plea. The Court noted that the re-sentence took into account the objective seriousness of the offence, the applicant's medical conditions, and the need for consistency with the sentence imposed on the co-offender. The Court also noted that the re-sentence was within the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences. The applicant's appeal was thus resolved by the re-sentencing, which addressed the identified errors and ensured a fair and proportionate sentence.