Legal Research
Cases
Laalaa v The Queen

Laalaa v The Queen

Case [2009] NSWCCA 250 2 October 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Laalaa v R [2009] NSWCCA 250

HEARING DATE(S): 2 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 October 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Hoeben J at 2; RA Hulme J at 3

DECISION: Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - supply of large commercial quantity of heroin - assessment of objective seriousness - parity between co-offenders - whether sentence manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
EG v Regina [2003] NSWCCA 246
JOD v R [2009] NSWCCA 205
R v AEM Snr, KEM and MM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32
R v Attallah [2005] NSWCCA 277
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63
R v Bavadra [2002] NSWCCA 292; (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
R v Bayeh [2000] NSWCCA 473
R v Chung [2001] NSWCCA 484
R v George (2004) NSWCCA 247; 149 A Crim R 38
R v Knight; R v Biuvanua [2007] NSWCCA 283; 176 A Crim R 338
R v MacDonnell [2002] NSWCCA 34; (2002) 128 A Crim R 44
R v MAK; MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Panagakos [2003] NSWCCA 81; (2002) 138 A Crim R 538
Vuni v R [2006] NSWCCA 171

PARTIES: Noureddine Laalaa (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2002/14793

COUNSEL: Mr H Dhanji (Applicant)
Mr P Leask (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: O'Brien & Hudson
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0019

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Stewart ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 31 October 2003

- 1 -

2002/14793

TOBIAS JA
HOEBEN J
R A HULME J

2 October 2009

Noureddine LAALAA v Regina

Judgment

1 Tobias JA:

I agree with R A Hulme J.

2 Hoeben J: I agree with R A Hulme J and the order which he proposes.

3 R A Hulme J: Noureddine Laalaa applies for an extension of time for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 31 October 2003. On that occasion his Honour Acting Judge Stewart QC sentenced the applicant for an offence of supplying not less than the large commercial quantity of heroin to imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. The sentence was expressed to commence on 3 August 2000. The applicant will become eligible for release on parole on 2 August 2015. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for life and/or a fine of $550,000 (s 33(3)(a) Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985).

4 In sentencing for that offence the judge took into account at the applicant’s request a further offence, being one…

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 Laalaa v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Laalaa v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 250
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 250
Decision Date: 2 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against sentence by the appellant, Laalaa, who was convicted for supplying a large commercial quantity of heroin. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment, and the appeal centred on the severity of this sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. This required the court to assess the objective seriousness of the crime and to consider the need for parity in sentencing between co-offenders. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors, including the role played by co-offenders in the offence.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly focusing on the objective seriousness of the crime and the need for parity in sentencing. It was noted that the appellant had played a significant role in the supply of a large quantity of heroin, which was inherently serious. However, the court also recognised the importance of considering the role of co-offenders and the need for proportionality in sentencing. After a thorough review, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's role and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not fail to achieve the fundamental purposes of criminal punishment.

Orders