R v Dehghani; ex parte

Case [2011] QCA 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dehghani; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 159

PARTIES:

R
v
DEHGHANI, David John
(respondent)
EX PARTE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 127 of 2010
SC No 354 of 2008
SC No 355 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by DPP (Cth)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret Wilson AJA, Ann Lyons and Martin JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.Appeal allowed; 

2. Set aside sentence and non-parole period imposed on count 1;

3. On count 1 the respondent is sentenced to 14 years imprisonment from 8 February 2007 to expire on 7 February 2021;

4. On count 1 set a non-parole period of 7 years 9 months from 8 February 2007 to expire on 7 November 2014. 

5.  Declare that the period of 897 days between 8 February 2007 and 24 July 2009 is imprisonment already served under the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent pleaded guilty to one count of importing 3,4‑Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, counts of structuring transactions to avoid the reporting requirements of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) and one count of dealing with the proceeds of crime in contravention of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – where the respondent was sentenced to 10 years 10 months imprisonment with a non‑parole period of six years six months for the drug importation offence and concurrent terms of two years for each of the money transactions – where respondent made undertaking to cooperate – where respondent made a statement implicating two co-offenders in the drug importation – where s 21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) states that a person who co-operates with law enforcement agencies should receive a benefit in sentencing – where respondent partially cooperated at the pre-trial Basha inquiry – where respondent minimally cooperated at the trial of his co-offenders – where appeal brought against the inadequacy of the sentence in light of the partial failure to cooperate – whether court should set aside the sentence and impose a new sentence

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), s 142(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16(1), s 19(2), s 19AB, s 21E
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 307.1, s 400.4(1)
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth), s 31(1)

DPP (Cth) vHaunga (2001) 4 VR 285, considered
DPP (Cth) v Parsons (1994) 74 A Crim R 172, considered
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 85 ALJR 195, applied
R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337, cited
R v Dehghani[2009] QCA 362, considered
R vGladkowski (2000) 115 A…

Continue reading R v Dehghani; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dehghani; ex parte [2011] QCA 159
Case
[2011] QCA 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Dehghani, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the primary judge, arguing that it was inadequate given his partial cooperation with law enforcement. The appeal was brought under section 21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which mandates that a person who cooperates with law enforcement agencies should receive a benefit in sentencing. The primary judge had sentenced the appellant to 10 years and 10 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months for drug importation, along with concurrent terms for the money transactions. The appellant had partially cooperated at the pre-trial Basha inquiry and minimally cooperated at the trial of his co-offenders. The legal question before the court was whether the sentence was inadequate in light of the appellant's cooperation and whether it should be set aside and replaced with a new sentence.

The court considered the extent of the appellant's cooperation and its impact on the sentence. While the appellant had cooperated, it was deemed partial and minimal, particularly when compared to the full cooperation expected under section 21E of the Crimes Act. The court noted that the primary judge had recognised the appellant's cooperation but did not sufficiently weigh it in determining the sentence. The court found that the sentence was inadequate as it did not adequately reflect the appellant's cooperation and the mitigating effect it had on his culpability. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. The court imposed a new sentence of 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 9 months. The court also declared that the period of 897 days served between 8 February 2007 and 24 July 2009 was imprisonment already served under the new sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Appeal allowed;

2. Set aside sentence and non-parole period imposed on count 1;

3. On count 1 the respondent is sentenced to 14 years imprisonment from 8 February 2007 to expire on 7 February 2021;

4. On count 1 set a non-parole period of 7 years 9 months from 8 February 2007 to expire on 7 November 2014.

5. Declare that the period of 897 days between 8 February 2007 and 24 July 2009 is imprisonment already served under the sentence.

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.