Legal Research
Cases
R v Cidan

R v Cidan

Case [2014] NSWCCA 66 29 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66
Hearing dates: 26 March 2014
Decision date: 29 April 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Adamson J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Allow the appeal
(2) Vary the sentence imposed by Puckeridge A-DCJ on 8 October 2013 by altering the commencement date in respect of count 2 from 18 July 2012 to 18 July 2014;
(3) Vary the sentence imposed by Haesler DCJ on 22 January 2014 by:
(a) increasing the sentence for the offence of supplying methylamphetamine from 7 years to 9 years; and
(b) altering the commencement date for that sentence from 18 July 2016 to 18 July 2017 and increasing the non-parole period from 3 years to 4 years
Note that the first date on which the respondent will be eligible for release is 18 July 2021.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - Crown appeal - manifest inadequacy - substantial concurrence of sentence with sentence already imposed - drug offences - relevance of respondent's role and quantity of drugs
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16BA, s16A, 16E, s 19AD
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 314.4, s 400.4
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 32, s 44, s 54A, s 54B
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
DPP v Karazisis [2010] VSCA 350; 31 VR 634
Everett v The Queen [1994] HCA 49; 181 CLR 295
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2005] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159
R v Mulato [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Niketic [2002] NSWCCA 425
Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; 212 CLR 629
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Appellant)
Aziz Cidan (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
P Neil SC/TD Anderson (Appellant)
C Davenport SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
John B. Hajje and Associates (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/232309
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Before:

Puckeridge A-DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/232309

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Adamson J.

FULLERTON J: I agree with Adamson J.

ADAMSON J: This is an appeal by the Crown pursuant to s 5D 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 Cidan

Details

AGLC: R v Cidan [2014] NSWCCA 66
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 66
Decision Date: 29 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cidan involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentencing of Cidan for drug-related offences. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary focus of the appeal was the appropriateness of the sentence, given the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, and the role played by the respondent in the criminal activity.

The legal issues at the heart of this appeal centred on whether the sentence was so inadequate that it warranted intervention from the appellate court. Key considerations included the principles of sentencing, the role of the respondent in the offence, and the quantity of drugs involved. The court needed to determine if the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and whether it was in line with sentences imposed in similar cases.

In examining these issues, the court noted the substantial concurrence of the sentence with those imposed in comparable cases. The court acknowledged the role of the respondent and the quantity of drugs as significant factors. However, the court found that the sentence did not deviate significantly from the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences, taking into account the respondent's role and the amount of drugs involved. Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the appeal. The original sentence stood affirmed.

Orders