Legal Research
Cases
Osman v R

Osman v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 78 22 April 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Osman v R [2020] NSWCCA 78
Hearing dates: 19 August 2019
Date of orders: 22 April 2020
Decision date: 22 April 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Price J at [2]
Lonergan J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against sentence allowed.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW — particular offences — drug offences — supply prohibited drug — indictable quantity — traffickable quantity — possession of prohibited drug
SENTENCING — appeal against sentence — severity — whether sentence manifestly excessive — whether sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account a legislative amendment that allowed the offence to be dealt with summarily — grounds not made out
SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — multiple offences — totality — whether sentencing judge erred by failing to properly apply the totality principle — ground not made out
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Dagdanasar v R (2010) 57 MVR 230; [2010] NSWCCA 310
GS v R [2016] NSWCCA 266
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Kandemir v R [2018] NSWCCA 154
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115; [2000] NSWCCA 317
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66; [2000] NSWCCA 540
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Jones [2003] NSWCCA 54
R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; [2002] NSWCCA 129
R v Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174
R v Ronen (2006) 161 A Crim R 300; [2006] NSWCCA 123
R v Said El Masri [2005] NSWCCA 167
R v Sandford (1994) 33 NSWLR 172
RCW v R (No 2) (2014) 244 A Crim R 541; [2014] NSWCCA 190
Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43
ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim R 105; [2017] NSWCCA 132
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Wagdi Osman (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Quilter (Applicant)
R Ranken (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/228155
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

12 October 2018

Before:

Judge O’Rourke SC

File Number(s):

2017/228155

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Lonergan J.
PRICE J: I agree with Lonergan J.
LONERGAN J: Mr Wagdi Osman seeks leave to appeal, pursuant to s 5(1) (c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), against a sentence imposed at the District Court at Campbelltown…

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 Osman v R

Details

AGLC: Osman v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 78
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 78
Decision Date: 22 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Osman was charged with supplying a traffickable quantity of a prohibited drug and possessing a quantity of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant sought to appeal against his sentence on several grounds, including that it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to take into account a legislative amendment that allowed the offence to be dealt with summarily. The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge did not properly apply the totality principle because he was sentenced for multiple offences.

The court found that the appellant's arguments were not well founded. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had considered the legislative amendment and had correctly exercised his discretion in deciding not to deal with the offence summarily. The court also held that the sentencing judge had properly applied the totality principle in sentencing the appellant for multiple offences. The court found that the appellant had not made out any of the grounds of appeal, and therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles and the facts of the case. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed, and that the sentencing judge had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the law. The court also held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the legislative amendment and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the law. The court found that the appellant had not made out any of the grounds of appeal, and therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court did not make any orders in relation to the appeal.

Orders