COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Farhat v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 20
PARTIES: FARHAT, Shadi v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO: 1657/2017 DELIVERED ON: 10 October 2017 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 5 October 2017 JUDGMENT OF: Blow CJ, Estcourt J and Marshall AJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Trafficking in crystal methylamphetamine and trafficking in firearms – Sentence of six years' imprisonment with non-parole period of three years – Not manifestly excessive.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: Appellant: A G Melick SC, R Broomhall, P Slipper Respondent: J Ransom Solicitors: Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 20 Number of paragraphs: 43
Serial No 20/2017
File No 1657/2017
SHADI FARHAT v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ ESTCOURT J MARSHALL AJ 10 October 2017
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 20/2017
File No 1657/2017
SHADI FARHAT v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ 10 October 2017
I agree that this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons stated by Estcourt J.
In those reasons at [41] his Honour said that the appellant "could claim no mitigating circumstances". I take that comment to refer to the circumstances of the offending, but not to the appellant's personal circumstances. A number of aspects of the appellant's personal circumstances were relied upon as mitigating. I would like to say a little about those circumstances.
First of all, the appellant had no prior convictions. He had apparently led a blameless life until committing the crimes in question in his mid-thirties. However he committed a number of offences of dishonesty and driving offences in New South Wales in 2015, after having been released from bail on these charges. As a result, he spent a little over five months in custody in New South Wales from 1 December 2015 to early May 2016.
Secondly, before developing a drug problem he had led a responsible life, conducted a panel beating business with several employees, and made substantial annual donations to charities.
Thirdly, the learned sentencing judge was obliged to take into account the totality principle, and did so. In practical terms, that meant that, because of the months spent in custody in New South Wales, the sentence for the crimes in question had to be a little more lenient than would otherwise have been appropriate. See Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59.
Fourthly, there was the appellant's offer to provide assistance to the police. However this was a fairly insignificant factor. The learned sentencing judge rightly took it into account only as a matter explaining why the appellant was held in protective custody. The appellant offered to assist the police in relation to their investigations relating to his co-offenders, but the offer was…
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 Farhat v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Farhat v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 20
Case
[2017] TASCCA 20
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Criminal Appeal, considered an appeal against sentence brought by the applicant, Mr. Farhat, who had been convicted of trafficking in crystal methylamphetamine and trafficking in firearms. The applicant sought to have his sentence of six years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, reduced on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a sentence that was demonstrably too severe, thereby warranting appellate intervention. This required the Court to assess the proportionality of the sentence in light of the nature and gravity of the offences, the applicant's personal circumstances, and relevant sentencing principles.
The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the sentencing judge's decision, finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court applied established principles of sentencing for drug trafficking and firearms offences, taking into account the seriousness of trafficking in methylamphetamine and firearms, and the need for general deterrence. The Court concluded that the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community, and that there were no grounds to interfere with the exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion.