R v Deha Kelekci

Case [2018] NSWDC 227


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Deha Kelekci [2018] NSWDC 227
Hearing dates: 13 July 2018
Decision date: 23 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [94]

Catchwords: Multiple counts of supply prohibited drugs; aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 203
R v Cahyadi [2007] NSWCCA 1
R V Kelekci [2018] NSWSC 1209
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Deha Kelekci (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:

 

A Williams (Offender)

  Solicitors:
S Jaeger (Crown)
File Number(s): 16/170155
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender pleaded guilty on the following three counts on an Indictment upon arraignment on 13 July 2018:

  1. Count 1 – supply prohibited drug (4.18 grams of methylamphetamine) pursuant to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“DMTA”).

  2. Count 2 – supply prohibited drug (668 mls GHB) pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.

  3. Count 3 – supply prohibited drug (27.8 grams of methylamphetamine) pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA.

  1. Each of the three offences carried a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2000 penalty units.

  2. The offender also asked to be taken into account on a Form 1 a charge of supplying a prohibited drug (2.25 grams of cocaine) pursuant to s 25(1) of the DMTA. It carried the same maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or 2000 penalty units. The offender admitted his guilt in respect of that charge.

  3. The offender had been committed for trial on 24 January 2017. The trial was listed to commence on 6 November 2017, and a plea of guilty was entered on 20 October 2017 at the District Court.

  4. The offences occurred between 6 April 2016 and 1 June 2016. The offender was arrested on 2 June 2016 and has been in custody since that date.

  5. The offences were committed whilst the offender was subject to a bond pursuant to s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“CSPA”) imposed on 27 April 2015 for driving whilst his licence was suspended, for a period of 12 months. That bond was called up on 18 February 2016 and was revoked, and a fine was imposed.

  6. A further charge of possess prohibited drug is subject to a Certificate pursuant to s 166(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and is to be withdrawn and dismissed following sentence.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 13 July 2018. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It contained an Agreed Statement of Facts which contained substantial detail of the investigations that took place prior to the arrest of the offender. It may be summarised as follows.

  2. A controlled police operation known as Strikeforce…

Continue reading R v Deha Kelekci

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Deha Kelekci [2018] NSWDC 227
Case
[2018] NSWDC 227
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the respondent, Deha Kelekci, against his conviction and sentence. The appeal pertained to multiple counts of supplying prohibited drugs. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the primary judge erred in law in relation to the aggregate sentence imposed on the respondent. The respondent argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be set aside. The prosecution contended that the sentence was within the appropriate range and correctly reflected the severity of the offences.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing for multiple offences and the overarching principle of proportionality. The court noted that while the aggregate sentence was indeed lengthy, it was not manifestly excessive when considering the nature of the offences and the respondent's criminal history. The court emphasised that the primary judge had appropriately exercised discretion and had taken into account all relevant factors. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [94]

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.