R v Azzi (No 2) - [2020] NSWSC 989

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Azzi (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 989
Hearing dates: 11 February 2020
Date of orders: 11 March 2020
Decision date: 11 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
Adam Jay Azzi, I convict you of the offence of possess prohibited drug, contrary to s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). You are sentenced to a fixed term of 3 months’ imprisonment, commencing 7 November 2016 and ending 6 February 2017.
Adam Jay Azzi, I convict you of the offence of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) contrary to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). You are sentenced to a fixed term of 3 months’ imprisonment, commencing 7 November 2016 and ending 6 February 2017.
Adam Jay Azzi, I convict you of the offence of carry cutting weapon upon apprehension, contrary to s 547D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). You are sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months’ imprisonment, commencing 7 November 2016 and 6 May 2017.
Those sentences by their making have expired.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – s 166 Certificate sentence after trial

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Azzi (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 988
R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115; [2000] NSWCCA 317

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Adam Jay Azzi (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Kerr (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Pogson Cronin Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/332719

remarks on sentence

HIS HONOUR: The Court delivered its reasons on sentence on Friday, 6 March 2020: R v Azzi (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 988 (“the reasons on sentence”). Those reasons will be published shortly.
At the conclusion of the reasons on sentence, his Honour imposed a sentence upon Mr Azzi as follows:

For the reasons I have given, Adam Jay Azzi, for the offence of use an offensive weapon with intent to commit the indictable offence of intimidation contrary to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, you are convicted. Pursuant to s 44(1) of the Sentencing Act, the Court sets a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, commencing 7 November 2016 and expiring 6 August 2020. The balance of the term shall be 1 year 3 months from 7 August 2020 to 6 November 2021.

Adam Jay Azzi, for the manslaughter of Lloyd Frederick Kennedy, you are convicted. Pursuant to s 44(2) of the Sentencing Act, the Court sets a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months, commencing 7 November 2017 and expiring 6 February 2025. The balance of the term shall be 2 years 9 months commencing 7 February 2025 to 6 November 2027.

The overall sentence is 11 years’ imprisonment, comprising of a non-parole period of 8 years 3 months commencing on 7 November…

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 Azzi (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Azzi (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 989
Case: [2020] NSWSC 989
Decision Date: 11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Azzi was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The appellant, Azzi, was convicted of charges related to drug trafficking. The primary dispute was the length of the sentence imposed on Azzi following his conviction. Azzi appealed the sentence on the basis that it was excessive and not proportionate to the crime committed.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, excessive or otherwise not appropriate. This involved considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and whether the sentence was consistent with other similar cases. Additionally, the court needed to assess the submissions made by both the prosecution and defence concerning the appropriate length of the sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate or excessive. The court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, Azzi's culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the sentence was proportionate and consistent with other similar cases. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence imposed on Azzi be upheld. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence remained as determined by the trial judge.

Orders