Legal Research
Cases
Haddara v The Queen

Haddara v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 158 19 June 2015

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0206

RABIEH HADDARA	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 June 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 June 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 158
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Haddara (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gaynor, 16 April 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Firearms charges – Error as to maximum penalty – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms F H Todd	Robert Stary Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr D A Trapnell QC	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Introduction

On 11 December 2013, the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence (charge 1); seven charges of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (charges 2 to 8); and two charges of possessing a drug of dependence (charges 9 and 10).

The appellant also pleaded guilty to a number of summary charges:[1] three charges of possessing cartridge ammunition without a permit (summary charges 9, 12 and 16); one charge of possessing protected wildlife without authorisation (a crocodile, summary charge 22); three charges of possessing a prohibited weapon (first, an imitation .45 calibre hand gun, summary charge 13; secondly, three samurai swords, an imitation revolver, a crossbow, a flick knife and sword with serrated edge, all part of summary charge 21; and, thirdly, a ‘Yukon’ crossbow, summary charge 26); two charges of driving whilst disqualified (summary charges 28 and 31); and two charges of unlicensed driving (summary charges 29 and 30).
[1]Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 145, s 242.

On 16 April 2014, the judge sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four (4) years and six (6) months, according to the following table:

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Trafficking a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) [2] 15 years 3 years Base

2 Prohibited person in possession of unregistered firearm (.22 calibre pen pistol)[3] 15 years 1 year 2 months

3 Prohibited person possessing a firearm (AK-47 assault rifle) 10 years[4] 2 years 9 months[5]

4 Prohibited person in possession of unregistered firearm (SKS-M semi-automatic rifle) 15 years 2 years 9 months

5 Prohibited person in possession of unregistered firearm (M1 Carbine semi-automatic rifle) 15 years 2 years 9 months

6 Prohibited person possessing a firearm[6] (Sterling .22 calibre rifle) 10 years 2 years 9 months

7 Prohibited person possessing a firearm (.22 calibre pen pistol) 10 years 1 years 2 months

8 Prohibited person possessing a firearm (.22 calibre pen pistol) 10 years 1 years 2 months

9 Possession of a drug of dependence[7] (anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents) 1 year or 30 penalty units 1 month —

10 Possession of a drug of dependence[8] (cannabis) 5 penalty units $200 fine —

Summary Charges

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

9

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 Haddara v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Haddara v The Queen [2015] VSCA 158
Case: [2015] VSCA 158
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haddara v The Queen involved the appellant, who had been found guilty of several firearms offences. The appellant sought to appeal his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in calculating the maximum penalty for the firearms charges. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of this appeal. The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's error in assessing the maximum penalty for the firearms charges constituted a significant error that warranted an appeal and potential alteration of the sentence. This involved examining the nature of the error and its impact on the overall sentencing process.

The court examined whether the trial judge's miscalculation of the maximum penalty was a material error that affected the appellant's sentence. It was established that the trial judge had incorrectly applied the maximum penalty provisions for the firearms charges, leading to a harsher sentence than what the law permitted. The court held that such an error was indeed significant and had a material impact on the appellant's sentence. The court further reasoned that the trial judge's error was not merely a minor oversight but a fundamental misapplication of the law that affected the severity of the sentence imposed. Given these findings, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence.

The High Court's decision underscored the importance of accurately applying legal provisions, particularly in the context of sentencing. The court's ruling emphasised that any error regarding the maximum penalty for an offence could have substantial implications on the defendant's sentence. In this instance, the trial judge's error led to an incorrect and harsher penalty, which the court deemed significant enough to warrant an appeal. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to reassess the appellant's sentence in light of the correct maximum penalty provisions.

Orders