Ibrahim v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 188

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Ibrahim v R [2019] NSWCCA 188
Hearing dates: 1 April 2019
Date of orders: 15 August 2019
Decision date: 15 August 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [80]; N Adams J at [81]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant an extension of time for notice of application for leave to appeal up to and including 18 February 2019.
(2)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(3)   Appeal allowed.
(4)   Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months to commence on 9 December 2014 with a non-parole period of 5 years and 9 months expiring on 8 September 2020 and a balance of term of 2 years and 9 months expiring on 8 June 2023.
(5)   The earliest date the applicant will be eligible to be released on parole is 8 September 2020.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Firearms offences – Conspiracy to unlawfully supply pistols or prohibited firearms

SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence – Co-offenders – Discount for plea of guilty – Co-offenders received discount for plea of 15% - Applicant received discount for plea of 10% - Applicant’s plea entered shortly after

SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence – Assessment of criminality – Whether findings of fact available on evidence
SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence – Non-parole period – Ratio of the non-parole period and balance of term - Finding of special circumstances – Partial Accumulation of sentence upon previously imposed sentence – Non-parole period marginally less than statutory ratio
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Borg v R [2019] NSWCCA 129
El-Ahmad v R [2015] NSWCCA 65
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225
Sabongi v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 167; [2015] NSWCCA 25
Tyler v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 458
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hassan Sam Ibrahim (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lange (Applicant)
M Cinque SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hanna Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/97928
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

16 February 2018

Before:

Judge Blackmore SC

File Number(s):

2014/97928

HEADNOTE

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

Hassan (Sam) Ibrahim (the applicant) pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to unlawfully supply pistols or prohibited firearms contrary to the common law. Following the applicant’s guilty plea, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years and…

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 Ibrahim v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ibrahim v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 188
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 188
Decision Date: 15 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case appealed against his sentence for conspiracy to unlawfully supply pistols or prohibited firearms. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the applicant argued that his sentence was excessive. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 4 months. The applicant argued that the non-parole period was excessive as it was marginally less than the statutory ratio of one-third of the total sentence. The applicant also argued that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account his early guilty plea and had not properly assessed his criminality.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the findings of fact available on the evidence and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The court had to consider whether the applicant's early guilty plea should have resulted in a greater discount on his sentence than the co-offenders who had also pleaded guilty. The court also had to consider whether the sentencing judge had properly assessed the applicant's criminality and whether the non-parole period was appropriate.

The court found that the findings of fact were available on the evidence and that the sentencing judge had properly assessed the applicant's criminality. The court found that the applicant's plea of guilty was entered shortly after his co-offenders and that the discount for the plea was appropriately reflected in the sentence. The court also found that the non-parole period was appropriate and that the ratio of the non-parole period and the balance of the term was not excessive. The court held that the applicant's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the applicant's appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the findings of fact were available on the evidence and that the sentencing judge had properly assessed the applicant's criminality. The court also held that the discount for the applicant's plea of guilty was appropriately reflected in the sentence and that the non-parole period was appropriate.

Orders