R v Dahdah - [2021] NSWDC 810

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dahdah [2021] NSWDC 810
Hearing dates: 23 November 2021
Date of orders: 23 November 2021
Decision date: 23 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order: [33].

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Ongoing supply — Supply prohibited drug — Possess prohibited drug
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No significant record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders – paramount consideration – community safety
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Health issues

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Jessie Dahdah (Offender)
Representation:
Ms L Hawke (Solicitor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr E James (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/48633

Judgment

Jessie Dahdah, who is almost 30 years of age, has been in custody since his arrest on drug charges on 19 February 2021. He pleads guilty, in circumstances justifying a 25% discount on a term of imprisonment, to two offences, the first a count of ongoing supply prohibited drug contrary to s 25A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (sequence 1). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. To be taken into account on sequence 1, in the way suggested by the Chief Justice in the guideline judgment on these matters (Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146), are five matters on a Form 1, one of deemed supply (sequence 16), two of possess prohibited drug (sequences 17 & 19), one of possess prescribed restricted substance (sequence 20) and one of deal with the proceeds of crime (sequence 21).
The second principal count (sequence 8) is an offence of supply prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
Those maximum penalties are yardsticks in the sentencing process and the purpose of the sentencing, outlined in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 must be taken into account.
The co-offender has not yet been sentenced so no questions of parity arise.
In short, a police task force investigated the supply of drugs, namely cocaine by the co-offender Shannon Hughes. They revealed that Dahdah acted as a…

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 Dahdah

Details

AGLC: R v Dahdah [2021] NSWDC 810
Case: [2021] NSWDC 810
Decision Date: 23 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dahdah involved the respondent, Mr Dahdah, who was charged with ongoing supply and possession of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Mr Dahdah pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a prohibited drug and one count of supplying a prohibited drug. The central issues for the court were the appropriate sentence for the offences and the consideration of mitigating factors in determining that sentence.

The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the offences against the mitigating factors presented, including Mr Dahdah’s lack of a significant criminal record, his plea of guilty, and his expressions of remorse and willingness to rehabilitate. Additionally, the court needed to consider the purposes of sentencing, particularly the protection of the community, deterrence, and rehabilitation of the offender. The court also had to decide whether an intensive correction order was appropriate, given the nature of the offences and the objectives of sentencing.

In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and community safety. The court found that Mr Dahdah’s actions, while serious, did not warrant a lengthy custodial sentence, given his lack of a criminal history and his cooperation with authorities. The court imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order. This decision reflected a balance between the need to punish Mr Dahdah for his criminal conduct and the objectives of rehabilitation and community protection.

The court's final order was that Mr Dahdah would serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order. This decision recognised the seriousness of the offences while also considering the mitigating factors and the broader objectives of the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order: [33].

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 Dahdah [2021] NSWDC 810
Hearing dates:	23 November 2021
Date of orders:	23 November 2021
Decision date:	23 November 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order: [33].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Ongoing supply — Supply prohibited drug — Possess prohibited drug SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — No significant record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders – paramount consideration – community safety SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Health issues
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Jessie Dahdah (Offender)
Representation:	Ms L Hawke (Solicitor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr E James (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/48633