SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Quzag v The Queen (No 4) |
Citation: | [2016] ACTCA 27 |
Hearing Date: | 2 November 2015 |
DecisionDate: Reasons Date: | 2 November 2015 22 July 2016 |
Before: | Refshauge, Burns and Wigney JJ |
Decision: | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The sentence of 12 February 2015 is set aside. 3. Mohanad Quzag is sentenced to imprisonment for 22 months to commence on 28 September 2015, reduced from 24 months for his plea of guilty. 4. On 27 May 2016 the sentence is suspended. 5. Mohanad Quzag is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 2 years with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 2 years or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis – manifest excess – comparable cases – consideration of sentences for more serious offences – different subjective circumstances – parity – roles of co-offenders differed – sentence contrary to law – combination sentence – full time custody and periodic detention – periodic detention more lenient than full time custody – re-sentencing |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 11, 29(1), 29(1)(a), 33, 33(1)(za) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 616(3), 616(5) |
Cases Cited: | Anderson (1987) 32 A Crim R 146 Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 219 A Crim R 369 |
Parties: | Mohanad Quzag (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr M Kukulies-Smith (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 12 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT… |
Continue reading Quzag v The Queen (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Quzag v The Queen (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 27
- Case
- [2016] ACTCA 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the original sentence was a manifest excess, considering comparable cases and the appellant's subjective circumstances. It also had to consider the principle of parity in relation to co-offenders whose roles differed, and whether the original sentence was contrary to law, specifically in relation to the combination of full-time custody and periodic detention. The Court was effectively undertaking a re-sentencing exercise.
The Court reasoned that the original sentence involved a manifest excess, particularly when compared to sentences imposed in comparable cases and considering the appellant's differing role from his co-offenders. The Court found the imposition of a combination sentence of full-time custody and periodic detention to be contrary to law, as periodic detention was considered more lenient than full-time custody. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of 22 months imprisonment, reduced to 20 months for the guilty plea, commencing on 28 September 2015. This sentence was subsequently suspended on 27 May 2016, with the appellant required to enter into a good behaviour undertaking for two years, including a probation condition of supervision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The sentence of 12 February 2015 is set aside.
3. Mohanad Quzag is sentenced to imprisonment for 22 months to commence on 28 September 2015, reduced from 24 months for his plea of guilty.
4. On 27 May 2016 the sentence is suspended.
5. Mohanad Quzag is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for 2 years with a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 2 years or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.