R v Ahmad (No 1) - [2024] NSWDC 676

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676
Hearing dates: 25 – 28 November 2024, 3 December 2024
Date of orders: 13 December 2024
Decision date: 13 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
Verdicts of Guilty to all counts on the indictment, at [162].

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge-alone — Reasons of trial judge — 6 counts on indictment — Possession of commercial quantity of methylamphetamine; possession of .22 long rifle calibre cartridges; possession of prohibited firearms — Extended definition of possession in the deeming provision s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996 — Common law definition of possession.

Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132, 133, 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 3, 25(2), 29
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) ss 4A, 7(1), 74(3)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 34(1)
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
He Kaw Teh [1985] HCA 43; (1985) 157 CLR 523
Joseph Sultana v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 27
R v Tang [2008] HCA 39; (2008) 237 CLR 1
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Ng (Crown)
B Eurell (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Just Defence Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00391590
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

The accused, Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad, also known as Jordan Issa, stood trial in a judge-alone trial before me between 25 November 2024 and 3 December 2024.
The accused pleaded Not Guilty upon his arraignment with respect to 6 counts in the indictment which was presented. Count 1 alleges possession of not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Counts 2, 3 and 4 each allege possession of .22 long rifle calibre cartridges which were located in three different areas of a motor vehicle alleged to have been driven by the accused. Each of these counts charges an offence contrary to s 74(3) of the Firearms Act 1996. Count 5 alleges possession by the accused of a prohibited weapon, namely a .22 long rifle calibre firearm magazine, which was also located in the vehicle. This is pursuant to s 34(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. Count 6 alleges possession of a prohibited firearm, namely a .22 calibre GEVARM E-1 self-loading rifle without being authorised to do so by a licence or permit. This is contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.
A joint application was made for the trial to proceed as a judge-alone trial pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 sets out the provisions which are…

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 (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676
Case: [2024] NSWDC 676
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ahmad (No 1) arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant, Ahmad, faced six counts on an indictment. These included possession of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, possession of .22 long rifle calibre cartridges, and possession of prohibited firearms. The central dispute centred on the interpretation of the term "possession" under the deeming provision in section 4A of the Firearms Act 1996, juxtaposed against the common law definition of possession.

The court had to determine the applicability of the extended definition of possession in s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996, and how this compared to the traditional common law definition. The legal issue was whether the deeming provision in the statute could be applied to encompass a broader scope of possession than what was traditionally understood at common law. This included examining whether the legislative intent behind s 4A allowed for a broader interpretation that would include circumstances not traditionally covered by the common law definition.

The court, after thorough deliberation, found that the deeming provision in s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996 indeed extended the definition of possession beyond the common law. The reasoning was grounded in the legislative intent to more comprehensively address the possession of firearms and related items, and the court held that the extended definition was applicable in this case. Consequently, the verdicts of guilty on all counts were upheld.

No further orders were made beyond the verdicts of guilty on all counts at [162].

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdicts of Guilty to all counts on the indictment, at [162].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676
Hearing dates:	25 – 28 November 2024, 3 December 2024
Date of orders:	13 December 2024
Decision date:	13 December 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdicts of Guilty to all counts on the indictment, at [162].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge-alone — Reasons of trial judge — 6 counts on indictment — Possession of commercial quantity of methylamphetamine; possession of .22 long rifle calibre cartridges; possession of prohibited firearms — Extended definition of possession in the deeming provision s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996 — Common law definition of possession.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132, 133, 166 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 3, 25(2), 29 Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) ss 4A, 7(1), 74(3) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 34(1)
Cases Cited:	AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 He Kaw Teh [1985] HCA 43; (1985) 157 CLR 523 Joseph Sultana v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 27 R v Tang [2008] HCA 39; (2008) 237 CLR 1 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: B Ng (Crown) B Eurell (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Just Defence Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2022/00391590
Publication restriction:	N/A