Legal Research
Cases
R v Ahmad (No 2)

R v Ahmad (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWDC 184 22 May 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ahmad (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 184
Hearing dates: 1 May 2025
Date of orders: 22 May 2025
Decision date: 22 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
At [126]-[127]

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Sentence following judge-alone trial — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Deemed supply – Commercial quantity — Methylamphetamine — Firearms offences — Possess unauthorised prohibited firearm — Acquire ammunition subject to prohibition order — Bugmy considerations — Extensive criminal history

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 s 60(1AA)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5(1), 21A(2)(j), 53A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 166
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 ss 10(1), s25(2), 29; Sch 1
Firearms Act 1996 ss 7(1), 74(3)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 s 34(1)

Cases Cited:
R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676
R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32
R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387; (2013) 249 CLR 571
R v Campbell; R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1
Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186
Dawson (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 33
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383
Rv Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
Grills v R [2016] NSWCCA 46
Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
Leffley v R [2016] NSWCCA 243
Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285
R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56
R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Ng (Crown)
B Eurell (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Just Defence Lawyers (Offender)

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

JUDGMENT

Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad, also known as Jordan Issa, stood trial before me in a judge-alone trial from 25 November 2024 to 3 December 2024. I delivered my verdict judgment on 13 December 2024 returning a finding of Guilty on all 6 counts on the Indictment. The offender now appears for sentence in respect of those 6 substantive offences.
Count 1 relates to possession of not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years and/or 3,500 penalty units.
Counts 2, 3 and 4 each relate to possession of .22 calibre long-rifle cartridges which were located in three different areas of a motor vehicle. Each of these counts charges an offence contrary to s 74(3) of the Firearms Act 1996, namely possession of ammunition in contravention of a Firearms Prohibition Order that was in force. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years. There is no standard non-parole period.
Count 5 relates to possession of a prohibited weapon, namely a .22 calibre long-rifle firearm magazine, which was also located in the vehicle. This offence is a contravention of s 34(1) of the

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 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmad (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 184
Case: [2025] NSWDC 184
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ahmad (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mr Ahmad, faced charges related to drug supply and firearms offences. The case involved allegations of supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm, as well as acquiring ammunition subject to a prohibition order. The trial was conducted before a judge alone, following a jury waiver by the defendant. The central issues for the court to determine were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, considering the appellant's extensive criminal history and the unique circumstances of the case, including the relevance of Bugmy considerations.

The court was required to address several legal issues, primarily concerning the sentencing of Mr Ahmad. The first issue was whether the deemed supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine warranted a higher penalty, given the appellant's prior convictions and the substantial quantity involved. Another significant issue was the applicability of Bugmy considerations, which require a sentencing court to consider the Indigenous status of an offender as a mitigating factor. The court also had to balance these considerations against the severity of the firearms offences and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the appellant's extensive criminal history, which included numerous convictions for serious drug and violent offences. Despite this, the court considered Bugmy principles and recognised the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the appellant's criminal history did not outweigh the need for deterrence and protection of the community. It was determined that the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the drug supply and firearms charges. The court sentenced Mr Ahmad to a total of 13 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 4 months.

The final orders of the court mandated that Mr Ahmad serve a total of 13 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 4 months. This sentence was intended to reflect the gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to protect the community, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation as per Bugmy principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [126]-[127]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Ahmad (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 184

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

R v Ahmad (No 1)
[2024] NSWDC 676 Para 9

…The evidentiary background is set out in detail in my verdict judgment R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676 of 13 December 2024. However, the relevant facts for sentence are as follows.…
Chandab v R
[2021] NSWCCA 186 Para 109

…In Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186 the offender pleaded Guilty to two offences of possession of a prohibited pistol, being a .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson six chamber revolver, and knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, being 634.7g of cocaine. Both were found concealed in a compartment hidden below a…
Dawson (a pseudonym) v R
[2021] NSWCCA 33 Para 84

…In Dawson (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 33 the offender had pleaded Guilty to an offence of supplying not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, two offences of supplying methylamphetamine, an offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of not less than the commercial quantity of methylampheta…
SY v R
[2020] NSWCCA 320 Para 105

…essed for criminal purposes. See also R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56 at [25]; Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285 at [32]; R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43 at [76]; SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320 at [30].…
R v Campbell; R v Smith
[2019] NSWCCA 1 Para 78

…The Crown reminded the Court of the observations of Rothman J in R v Campbell; R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1 at [9]:…
Leffley v The Queen
[2016] NSWCCA 243 Para 92

…In Leffley v R [2016] NSWCCA 243 the offender pleaded Guilty to two counts of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, being amphetamine and methylamphetamine. The offender had been pulled over by police for the purposes of a random breath test and, on questioning, admitted to having some…
R v Jarad Smith
[2016] NSWCCA 75 Para 83

…some measure of the types of sentences passed in similar matters and can act as a touchstone for comparison of a contemplated sentence (see R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 at [73]).…
Grills v The Queen
[2016] NSWCCA 46 Para 96

…In Grills v R [2016] NSWCCA 46 the offender pleaded Guilty to two offences, namely supply a prohibited drug, being 4.82g methylamphetamine, and possession of a prohibited firearm, which was a fully loaded and operable American Carbine .44 Magnum. Attached to the drug offence on a Form 1 were offences of possess can…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 34

…I note in passing that the Crown has conceded the relevance of Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387; (2013) 249 CLR 571 factors in relation to the subjective case.…
R v AZ
[2011] NSWCCA 43 Para 105

…iousness that the weapon was possessed for criminal purposes. See also R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56 at [25]; Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285 at [32]; R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43 at [76]; SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320 at [30].…
Jackson v R
[2010] NSWCCA 162 Para 70

…here should be a finding of special circumstances. The emerging risk of institutionalisation was also said to support such a finding, see Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162. In conclusion, the submissions on behalf of the offender invited the Court to consider imposing an aggregate sentence and to bear in mind the releva…
Luu v R
[2008] NSWCCA 285 Para 105

…, it was relevant to objective seriousness that the weapon was possessed for criminal purposes. See also R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56 at [25]; Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285 at [32]; R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43 at [76]; SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320 at [30].…
R v Amurao
[2005] NSWCCA 32 Para 102

…In R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32 the offender pleaded Guilty to six offences; possess firearm on which the identification mark was defaced, possess unauthorised firearm, possess ammunition without licence, supply 10g of methylamphetamine, supply 28g of crystal-methylamphetamine (ice), and knowingly take part in the s…
Regina v Mehcur
[2002] NSWCCA 56 Para 105

…In other words, it was relevant to objective seriousness that the weapon was possessed for criminal purposes. See also R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56 at [25]; Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285 at [32]; R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43 at [76]; SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320 at [30].…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 31

…parent endeavour to persuade someone with respect to a prospective transaction relating to drug supply. I bear in mind the principle in R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383 and remind myself that the offender is not to be sentenced for more serious or uncharged conduct than that which is the subject o…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A(2)(j), 5(1), 53A 4 mentions (from Para 28)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
10(1), 29 3 mentions (from Para 2)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
7(1), 74(3) 3 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
60(1AA) 2 mentions (from Para 8)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
166 2 mentions (from Para 8)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
34(1) 2 mentions (from Para 4)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ahmad (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 184
Hearing dates:	1 May 2025
Date of orders:	22 May 2025
Decision date:	22 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	At [126]-[127]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Sentence following judge-alone trial — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Deemed supply – Commercial quantity — Methylamphetamine — Firearms offences — Possess unauthorised prohibited firearm — Acquire ammunition subject to prohibition order — Bugmy considerations — Extensive criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 s 60(1AA) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 5(1), 21A(2)(j), 53A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 166 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 ss 10(1), s25(2), 29; Sch 1 Firearms Act 1996 ss 7(1), 74(3) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 s 34(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676 R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32 R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387; (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Campbell; R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1 Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186 Dawson (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 33 R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383 Rv Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 Grills v R [2016] NSWCCA 46 Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162 Leffley v R [2016] NSWCCA 243 Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285 R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56 R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 SY v R [2020] NSWCCA 320
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: B Ng (Crown) B Eurell (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Just Defence Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/00391590
Publication restriction:	N/A