Majed Al-Dimachki v The Queen

In the case of Majed Al-Dimachki v The Queen, the appellant, Majed Al-Dimachki, appealed against his sentence for trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal, presided over by Justices The Honourable Justices Byrne, Maxwell and Cronin. Al-Dimachki argued that the trial judge erred by not taking into account certain portions of the prosecution opening summary that had been deleted by agreement between the prosecution and a co-accused. Additionally, he contended that the sentences imposed were disproportionate, both in terms of the individual trafficking charge and the total effective sentences.

The court examined whether the judge's failure to consider the excised portions of the prosecution opening summary constituted an error. It was found that the deleted paragraphs were not probative of Al-Dimachki’s role in the trafficking activities, and therefore, no relevant error was shown. The court also considered whether the sentences imposed were in parity with each other and with sentences imposed on co-accused. It was concluded that the differential of 12 months on the trafficking sentences and 10 months on the total effective sentences was reasonably open on the facts of the case. The modest numerical difference was deemed significant given the relatively short sentences imposed.

The court further assessed whether there was a misapplication of the totality principle. It was determined that no such misapplication occurred, as the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and took into account the totality of Al-Dimachki's offending. Applying the principles from Roe v The Queen [2021] VSCA 54, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the sentences imposed by the trial judge, finding that they were proportionate and appropriately reflected the offending conduct.