Legal Research
Cases
Hurmz v R

Hurmz v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 235 4 October 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hurmz v R [2017] NSWCCA 235
Hearing dates: 8 September 2017
Date of orders: 04 October 2017
Decision date: 04 October 2017
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Beech-Jones J at [2]
Wilson J at [42]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant by Payne DCJ on 20 August 2015 for the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug be granted;

(2)   Appeal dismissed;

(3)   Leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant by Williams DCJ on 27 May 2016 for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm be granted;
(4)   Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – supply commercial quantity of cocaine – whether sentence of 9 years 9 months manifestly excessive – offender with prior history of drug offending – offender conducted business of supplying cocaine over six month period – 2.4kg supplied – sophisticated drug supply operation – use of comparable cases and statistics – sentence not manifestly excessive – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Ayik v R [2013] NSWCCA 119
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Coetzee v R [2007] NSWCCA 12
DAB v R; NJB v R [2010] NSWCCA 275
Deakin v R [2014] NSWCCA 121
Dinsdale v The Queen (2002) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Farkas v R (2014) 243 A Crim R 388; [2014] NSWCCA 141
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Minh Tan Pham v R (2009) 193 A Crim R 190; [2009] NSWCCA 25
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Pham v R [2013] NSWCCA 217
Prculovski v R [2010] NSWCCA 274
R v Emanuel [2004] NSWCCA 267
R v Jihad Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
R v Kazzi [2008] NSWCCA 77
R v Li [2014] NSWCCA 327
R v Stankovic [2006] NSWCCA 229
Sevastopoulos v R [2011] NSWCCA 201
Spongberg v R [2017] NSWCCA 120
Vaisu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71
Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
YY v R [2016] NSWCCA 124
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Danny Hurmz (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Walker SC; N Kirby (Applicant)
T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Criminal Defence Group (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/163364
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

20 August 2015

Before:

Payne DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/163364

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Beech-Jones…

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 Hurmz v R

Details

AGLC: Hurmz v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 04 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hurmz v R, the appellant, Hurmz, was convicted for the supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine. The appeal was against his sentence of 9 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 1 month. The primary issue for determination was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This involved an assessment of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the offender's prior history, the nature and scale of the drug supply operation, and the use of comparable cases and sentencing statistics.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive by considering the severity of the offence, the offender's prior criminal history, and the scale of the drug supply operation. Hurmz had a history of drug offending and had been involved in a sophisticated drug supply operation over a six-month period, during which he supplied approximately 2.4 kilograms of cocaine. The court compared the current sentence with those in similar cases and considered relevant sentencing statistics to determine whether the sentence was appropriate. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court's reasoning focused on the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the offence and the offender's history. The sophisticated nature of the drug supply operation and the quantity of drugs involved warranted a significant sentence. The comparison with similar cases and sentencing statistics reinforced the court's conclusion that the sentence was appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the original sentence.

Orders