R v El Zayat

Case [2020] NSWDC 392

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v El Zayat [2020] NSWDC 392
Hearing dates: 20 May 2020, 25 May 2020
Date of orders: 25 May 2020
Decision date: 25 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of eight years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

Catchwords:

Criminal law sentencing – drug offences- knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug- large commercial quantity- supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis- duress- special circumstances – penalties- imprisonment

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act [1997]

Cases Cited:

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 94

R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66

Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mahmoud El Zayat (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Carroll (Offender)

Solicitors:
A Hanshaw (Crown)
C Cole (Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/00236729

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Mahmoud El Zayat appears for sentence. He pleaded guilty to;

  2. Count 1; knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 505 grams of methylamphetamine, being an amount which is not less than the large commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, with a standard non‑parole period of 15 years.    There is a form 1 referable to this count.

  3. Count 2: supply a prohibited drug, namely 83.69 grams of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty is 15 years' imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.

  4. Count 3: supply a prohibited drug, namely 111.6 grams of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty is 15 years' imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.

  5. Count 4 - supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis, contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty is 20 years. There is no standard non‑parole period.

  6. The maximum penalties and the standard non‑parole periods are an important guide post in the assessment of sentence. A judge should steer by them, but not aim for them.

FORM 1

  1. The offender asked that I take into account on sentence, pursuant to section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) five offences listed in a form 1. They were committed between 22 May 2018 and 1 August 2018. Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 28 grams of methylamphetamine. Maximum penalty - 15 years. Knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 84 grams of methylamphetamine. Maximum penalty - 15 years. Agree to supply a prohibited drug, namely 168 grams of methylamphetamine. Maximum penalty: 15 years. Supply a prohibited drug, namely 23 grams of cocaine. Maximum penalty: 15 years. Participate in a criminal group, and contribute to criminal activity. Maximum penalty: five years' imprisonment.

  2. I note that, having availed…

Continue reading R v El Zayat

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v El Zayat [2020] NSWDC 392
Case
[2020] NSWDC 392
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, El Zayat, who was charged with multiple drug-related offences, including knowingly participating in the supply of a prohibited drug in a large commercial quantity and supplying prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. El Zayat pleaded guilty to the charges but raised the defence of duress and claimed special circumstances to mitigate the penalties.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for El Zayat, taking into account the nature and severity of the offences, as well as the mitigating factors presented. The judge considered the large-scale commercial nature of the drug supply and the ongoing involvement of the defendant. Furthermore, the court had to assess the validity of the duress defence and whether it warranted a reduction in the penalties. The court also needed to establish an aggregate sentence and a non-parole period that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes while also considering the mitigating factors.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the severity of the drug offences committed by El Zayat. The judge found that while the defendant's involvement in the supply of a large commercial quantity of prohibited drugs was significant, the duress defence and special circumstances presented some mitigating factors. After weighing all the evidence and arguments, the court sentenced El Zayat to an aggregate term of eight years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The court determined that this sentence was just and appropriate in light of the circumstances.

The court ordered that El Zayat serve an aggregate sentence of eight years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of eight years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five 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.