Legal Research
Cases
Hassoun v The King

Hassoun v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 5 8 February 2023

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Hassoun v R [2023] NSWCCA 5
Hearing dates: 7 October 2022
Date of orders: 8 February 2023
Decision date: 08 February 2023
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Davies J at [36];
Hamill J at [37].
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – parity – criminal drug syndicate – supply of large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, cocaine, contrary to Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2) – where all offenders involved in day-to-day running of syndicate, but applicant not involved in some significant parts of the joint criminal enterprise – where applicant acknowledged involvement in smaller quantity of drugs than co-offenders – where one co-offender had substantial criminal record – whether justifiable sense of grievance in light of sentences imposed on co-offenders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 54A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25(2), 33(3)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 65(3)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112
DS v R [2014] NSWCCA 267
Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
Huckstadt v R [2016] NSWCCA 22
Jaafar v R [2022] NSWCCA 254
Kuo v R [2018] NSWCCA 270
Moranv R [2022] NSWCCA 217
Ninness v R [2014] NSWCCA 288
Paxton v R (2011) 219 A Crim R 104; [2011] NSWCCA 242
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44; [2002] NSWCCA 34
Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nouril Hassoun (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Lange (Applicant)
Ms A Bonnor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Kadadi & Co Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/346662
Publication restriction: N/A
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2021] NSWDC 519

Date of Decision:

18 June 2021

Before:

M L Williams SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/346662

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant, Nouril Hassoun, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for one count of supplying a large commercial quantity of cocaine (1.47 kilograms) contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“DMT Act”).

Mr Hassoun was sentenced in accordance with a Statement of Agreed Facts which detailed his participation in a criminal drug syndicate which operated throughout Sydney between June and November 2019. The syndicate operated two “call centre” telephone services connecting customers to drug runners, who would typically supply deal bags of less than 1 gram of cocaine. Mr Hassoun was responsible for managing one of the call centres, taking orders, directing drug runners to deliver orders, and organising the runners’ working arrangements.

Mr Hassoun pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 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 Hassoun v The King

Details

AGLC: Hassoun v The King [2023] NSWCCA 5
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 5
Decision Date: 08 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Hassoun, sought to appeal against his sentence imposed for his involvement in a criminal drug syndicate that supplied a large commercial quantity of cocaine. The syndicate's operations were contrary to section 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The appellant argued that his involvement in the syndicate was less significant than his co-offenders and that the sentence imposed on him was excessive in comparison to theirs.

The primary issue for the court to decide was whether the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offenders was justifiable. The court considered whether the appellant's lesser involvement in the syndicate warranted a lesser sentence, and whether the sentences imposed on the co-offenders were appropriate. The court also examined the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offence to determine if there was a justifiable sense of grievance in the appellant's appeal.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the appellant's involvement in the syndicate was less significant than his co-offenders, it was still a substantial part of the joint criminal enterprise. The court noted that the appellant had acknowledged his involvement in a smaller quantity of drugs than his co-offenders, but this did not necessarily mean that his sentence should be proportionately lesser. The court also considered the substantial criminal record of one co-offender, which may have influenced the sentence imposed on them. Ultimately, the court determined that the disparity in sentencing was justifiable and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed on the appellant was upheld. The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate and proportionate to the nature and extent of his involvement in the syndicate. The court also noted that the appellant's lesser involvement in the syndicate did not necessarily warrant a lesser sentence, as the nature of the offence and the significant impact on society must also be considered.

Orders