R v Ahmed - [2011] NSWDC 210

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AHMED [2011] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates: 30 September 2011
Decision date: 30 September 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an overall sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four years. Drugs to be destroyed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Ongoing supply of methylamphetamine - Supply cannabis - supply methylamphetamine - Form 1 - Conducting a drug premises while exposing a child to prohibited drugs.
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Maria AHMED
Representation: Mr P Barham - Offender
The Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2010/152118

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Maria Ahmed appears for sentence today after having pleaded guilty at an early stage to offences involving substantial criminality as a drug supplier. She was an apparently enthusiastic and resourceful supplier of methylamphetamine. She now stands to be sentenced for three offences, one of ongoing supply of the drug methylamphetamine, one of supplying cannabis and a further charge of supplying methylamphetamine, not on an ongoing basis but relating to the interpretation by police of telephone calls that Ms Ahmed had with her customers.

Police obtained telephone intercept warrants. They were granted on 23 April 2010. That very day police recorded Ms Ahmed making arrangements concerning the supply of half a gram of methylamphetamine. Police continued to listen and watch over the next few weeks until Ms Ahmed was arrested. The first count, that of ongoing supply, relates to supplies on 8 May, 14 May and 17 May. On 8 May police overheard the offender agreeing to supply Jason Isling with methylamphetamine. Police watched as he went to Ms Ahmed's premises and arrested him as he drove away. He was found to be in possession of 0.09 grams of methylamphetamine.

On 14 May 2010, again police overheard arrangements made by the offender to supply a person, this time Brad Wilmot, with drugs. Police watched as the offender delivered those drugs to him and when they arrested him, he had a bag containing half a gram of methylamphetamine. The bag itself apparently was in the possession of another person but there is no doubt it was a product of the offender's supply.

On 17 May, once more police intercepted a telephone conversation between "Andy" and the offender and once more police watched as the offender supplied him with drugs. Upon his arrest he was found to be in possession of 0.2 of a gram of methylamphetamine.

The total amount of drugs covered by the s 25A offence is 0.79 grams over those three transactions I have described. Of course, this is a relatively low figure reflecting the nature of the offender's operation - street level supplies.

The second count relates to the supply of cannabis to a person named Sarah. Police overheard a conversation between Sarah and the offender relating to the purchase of drugs and, when they met, police watched the transaction and arrested Sarah soon…

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 Ahmed

Details

AGLC: R v Ahmed [2011] NSWDC 210
Case: [2011] NSWDC 210
Decision Date: 30 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ahmed involved the defendant, Mr. Ahmed, who was charged with ongoing supply of methylamphetamine and conducting a drug premises while exposing a child to prohibited drugs. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Mr. Ahmed pleaded guilty to all charges, and the court proceeded to determine an appropriate sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Mr. Ahmed's criminal activities. The court had to consider various factors, including the nature and extent of the criminal conduct, the harm caused to the community, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to address the specific aggravating factor of exposing a child to prohibited drugs.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the seriousness of Mr. Ahmed's offences, particularly the exposure of a child to illicit drugs. The court highlighted the potential long-term harm such exposure could cause to the child's development and well-being. While considering the defendant's guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, the court ultimately determined that a significant custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the gravity of the offences and to serve as a deterrent. The court sentenced Mr. Ahmed to an overall sentence of imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four years. Furthermore, the court ordered that any drugs found on the premises be destroyed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an overall sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four years. Drugs to be destroyed

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 AHMED [2011] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates:	30 September 2011
Decision date:	30 September 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an overall sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four years. Drugs to be destroyed
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Ongoing supply of methylamphetamine - Supply cannabis - supply methylamphetamine - Form 1 - Conducting a drug premises while exposing a child to prohibited drugs.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Maria AHMED
Representation:	Mr P Barham - Offender The Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2010/152118