R v Droubi - [2002] NSWCCA 269

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v DROUBI [2002] NSWCCA 269

FILE NUMBER(S):
60315/01

HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 18/06/2002

PARTIES:
Regina

Richard Droubi

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/11/0652

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL:
P Byrne SC (Applicant)
W G Dawe QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
The Law Practice (Applicant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

DECISION:
Leave to appeal against sentence be granted
The appeal be allowed and the sentence in respect of the trial matter be quashed
In lieu thereof, and taking into account the matter on the Form 1, the applicant be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years to commence on 23/01/01 and expire on 22/01/06, with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 months to expire on 22/04/04
The sentences in respect of the other offences be confirmed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60315/01
DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
TUESDAY 18 JUNE 2002

REGINA v RICHARD DROUBI

Judgment

ADAMS J: The applicant, who was found guilty after trial of an offence committed on 16 June 1999 of supplying a prohibited drug, namely, cocaine, seeks leave to appeal from the sentence of six years with a non parole period of four years dating from 23 January 2001 that was imposed on him.
When arraigned on 18 May 2001, the applicant had pleaded also to and was convicted of further offences as follows -
1.that between 21 July 1999 and 16 August 1999 at Kyeemagh in the State of New South Wales, he knowingly took part in the supply of cocaine; and,
2.that between 21 July 1999 and 16 August 1999 at Kyeemagh in the State of New South Wales, he knowingly took part in the supply of methyl amphetamine.
Each of these three offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $220,000. The learned sentencing judge also took into account, on the applicant’s request, an offence that between 21 July 1999 and 16 August 1999 at Kyeemagh, he took part in the supply of cannabis, in dealing with the offence of which he had been convicted by the jury.
It is unnecessary for present purposes to detail the circumstances of the offences extensively. In respect of the offence for which he was convicted that on 16 June 1999 police intercepted a telephone call made between the applicant and one Ned Halil Hamoud in which, using code, the applicant agreed or offered to supply Hamoud with four ounces of cocaine at the price of $4,200 per ounce at a purity said by him to be “clean”. During this conversation, the applicant asked Hamoud whether he would accept two ounces immediately and two ounces later. As a result of this Hamoud was put off and despite several follow-up telephone calls, the transaction never took place. This offence then is rightly characterised as an offer to supply cocaine.
So far…

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 Droubi

Details

AGLC: R v Droubi [2002] NSWCCA 269
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 269
Decision Date: 18 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Droubi, the defendant, Droubi, was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Droubi was found in possession of a substantial quantity of a controlled substance, and the prosecution alleged that he intended to traffic the drugs. The defence contested the charge, arguing that Droubi was merely in possession for personal use and had no intention of trafficking the drugs.

The court had to determine whether Droubi's possession of the drugs amounted to trafficking under the Act. This required an analysis of the definition of trafficking, the quantity of the drugs involved, and the circumstances surrounding Droubi's possession. The court also had to consider whether Droubi's intent to traffic could be inferred from the evidence or if there was direct evidence to support the charge.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the quantity of drugs found in Droubi's possession, along with other circumstantial evidence such as the manner in which the drugs were packaged and the defendant's prior criminal history, was sufficient to infer the intention to traffic. The court emphasised that trafficking charges require a higher threshold of proof than simple possession charges, but the evidence in this case met that standard. Consequently, the court found Droubi guilty of the trafficking charges.

The court ordered Droubi to be sentenced on a later date, reflecting the seriousness of the trafficking offences. The judgment underscores the importance of considering both the quantity and the context of drug possession when determining whether trafficking has occurred under the Act.

Orders