R v Dahmoul

Case [2019] NSWDC 920

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dahmoul [2019] NSWDC 920
Decision date: 20 September 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Payne DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of three years

Catchwords:

SENTENCING – drug offences – supply prohibited drug (cannabis) – supply prohibited drug commercial quantity (3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine)

SENTENCING – subjective considerations on sentence – drug addiction – subjective considerations on sentence – hardship

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ss 25(1), 25(2)

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Akram Dahmoul (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
W Shukoor (Offender)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2017/298699

Judgment

  1. In relation to this matter, Akram Dahmoul comes before the Court in respect of two offences. He pleaded guilty to each of those offences.

The first offence is that he on 3 October 2017, at Darlinghurst in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely 20,519.4 grams of cannabis. This offence is contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

The second offence is on 4 October 2017, at Ultimo in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely, 246.4 grams of 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine being an amount which is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug. This offence is contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

  1. In relation to count 3, he pleaded not guilty and it was in the event placed on a Form document.

  2. The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence contrary to s 25(1) is 10 years imprisonment and/or a 2,000 penalty unit fine. The maximum penalty for count 2 is 20 years imprisonment and/or a 3,500 penalty unit fine. There is a standard non-parole period prescribed in relation to that offence of 10 years.

  3. In addition, he asks the Court to take into account on a Form in sentencing him in relation to count 2 on the indictment, the following offences:

Deal with suspected proceeds of crime, $184,350 in cash, s 193C(1) Crimes Act 1900; supply prohibited drug lysergic acid, less than the commercial quantity, s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act; possess prohibited drug, 1.42 grams of tetrahydrocannabinol, s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act; and a further offence of deal with the suspected proceeds of crime, $680 in cash, s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act.

  1. Each of those offences are said to have been committed, in respect of the first deal with proceeds of crime, 4 October 2017, and the next three, 3 October 2017. It should be noted that the prohibited drug was two tabs of lysergic acid.

  2. I will take those into account when sentencing him in respect of count 2 on the indictment.

  3. He was committed for trial on 10 September 2018 from the Central Local Court. He pleaded guilty on 21 June 2019. By that time though a trial date had been set…

Continue reading R v Dahmoul

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dahmoul [2019] NSWDC 920
Case
[2019] NSWDC 920
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the accused for drug offences. The accused had been found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and of supplying another prohibited drug, namely cannabis. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the accused, given the nature and seriousness of the offences committed. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the commercial quantity of drugs involved and the accused's role in the supply chain. The accused, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account mitigating factors such as addiction and personal hardship. The court had to weigh these considerations against the gravity of the offences.

The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, the accused's role in the supply chain, and the mitigating factors presented. The court found that while the mitigating factors were significant, they did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and increased the sentence to an aggregate term of six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence imposed on the accused be set aside, and replaced with an aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of three years

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.