R v Ahmad - [2005] NSWSC 848

CITATION:
Regina v Ahmad [2005] NSWSC 848

HEARING DATE(S): 04/07/2005, 23/08/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

23 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Howie J at 1

DECISION:
The offender is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment to commence on 23 August 2005 and to expire on 22 May 2006. The sentence is suspended upon the offender entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for the period of the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing for Hinder police investigation

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - s 315
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 12, 21A(2)

CASES CITED:
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

PARTIES:
Regina v Nidal Ahmad

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/2347

COUNSEL:
T.R. Bailey - Crown
P. Doyle - Offender

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

TUESDAY 23 AUGUST 2005

2004/2347 REGINA v NIDAL AHMAD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Nidal Ahmad, pleaded guilty on arraignment before this Court to a charge contrary to s 315 of the Crimes Act that she, between 11 June 2002 and 15 July 2002, encouraged Walid Ahmad to avoid police investigators with an intention to hinder the apprehension of the said Walid Ahmad for the serious offence of feloniously slaying Mayez Danny.

2 The offender was committed for trial to this Court on a charge of accessory after the fact to murder. She pleaded guilty to the offence on which she was arraigned as soon as the Crown indicated that it was prepared to accept a plea to that charge. However, Mr Doyle, who appears for the offender, has acknowledged that there were some discussions in the Local Court at the time of the committal proceedings as to whether or not a less serious charge than the committal charge would be accepted by the Crown and by the offender. Therefore, Mr Doyle, quite candidly has indicated to the Court that he cannot make the submission that the plea of guilty was at the first reasonable opportunity.

3 However, there is clearly a utilitarian value to the Crown in the plea of guilty and it seems to me that the charge is an appropriate one, having regard to the conduct that the Crown alleges in support of that particular charge. In light of the history of the matter the discount should be about 20 per cent but it may be that the effect of the discount will be to alter the nature of the sentence that would otherwise be appropriate rather than the length of the sentence.

4 Of course, the offender could not be dealt with for the more serious charge because the Crown has now accepted a plea of guilty from the principal offender, her husband Mr Walid Ahmad, to manslaughter. So to some extent, the charge currently before the Court is as a result of the plea negotiations that have occurred between the Crown and her husband.

5 It is unnecessary to detail the circumstances…

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 R v Ahmad

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmad [2005] NSWSC 848
Case: [2005] NSWSC 848
Decision Date: 23 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ahmad involved the appellant, Ahmad, who was convicted for hindering a police investigation. The appeal before the court focused on the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. Ahmad had been involved in an altercation with police officers and was found guilty of hindering their investigation by providing false information. The appeal centred on whether the sentence was excessive and if the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in determining the penalty.

The legal issues before the court were primarily whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the lower court had failed to consider relevant mitigating factors. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly those relating to the offence of hindering a police investigation. The court also needed to examine whether the lower court had appropriately balanced the need to deter such conduct with the need to consider Ahmad's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offence.

The court, in reviewing the case, determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the lower court had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and had adequately considered the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised that the offence of hindering a police investigation was serious and warranted a substantial penalty. It found that the lower court had appropriately balanced the competing considerations and had not erred in its application of the law. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed.

No additional orders were made by the court. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders