Medium Neutral Citation: R v Haddad [2023] NSWDC 393
Hearing dates: 31 August 2023
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
1.    The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months.
2   The sentence is taken to commence on 17 August 2022.
3   The first date the Offender is eligible for parole is 16 August 2025.
4 Pursuant to s 18B of the Drug Court Act 2000 the Offender is referred to the Drug Court to consider whether he should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order whilst in custody.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – Reckless wounding – Aggravated robbery with wounding/grievous bodily harm – Dishonestly obtain property by deception – Early plea of guilty – Young offender – Significant criminal history – Offender on conditional liberty – Bugmy principle – Drug addition – Mental health

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure Act) 1999, s 25D(2)(a), s 21A, 3A
Drug Court Act 2000, s 18B, 5A
Mental Health Act 2007, s 22

Cases Cited:
Attorney General's Application Under S37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Benitez v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 166
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 243 FLR 28; 205 A Crim R 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Dixon v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 85
McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280
Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73.
Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209
Pattison v R [2007] NSWCCA 186
R v Henry [1999] NSW CCA 111
RvJenkins [1999] NSWCCA 110
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296
R v Thomas [2008] NSWCCA 269
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216
The Queenv De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Andrew Junior Haddad (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Shaw (Crown)
S Talbert (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Veronica Love (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/029623
2022/243436
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Offender, Andre Junior Haddad, is being sentenced for the following two offences:

Reckless wounding, contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), This offence relates to events on 7 January 2022. The maximum penalty is 7 years with a standard non-parole period of 3 years.

Aggravated robbery with wounding/grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 96 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), This offence relates to events on 13 June 2022. The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period specified.

The Offender also asks that the Court take into account one offence of dishonestly obtain property by deception, contrary to s 192E(1) of the Crimes Act on a…

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 Haddad

Details

AGLC: R v Haddad [2023] NSWDC 393
Case: [2023] NSWDC 393
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Haddad, was charged with several offences, including reckless wounding, aggravated robbery with wounding or grievous bodily harm, and obtaining property by deception. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges, and the court needed to consider several factors, including the defendant's criminal history, his age, his status as a young offender, his addiction to drugs, and his mental health issues. The court also had to take into account the principle of Bugmy, which requires the court to consider the defendant's circumstances when determining an appropriate sentence.

The court had to consider whether the defendant's significant criminal history warranted a harsher sentence, and whether his addiction and mental health issues should be taken into account as mitigating factors. The court also had to consider the defendant's age and status as a young offender, and whether this should result in a lesser sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the principle of Bugmy, which requires the court to take into account the defendant's circumstances when determining an appropriate sentence. The court ultimately decided that the defendant should be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months, with the sentence to commence on 17 August 2022. The defendant will be eligible for parole on 16 August 2025. The court also referred the defendant to the Drug Court to consider whether he should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order whilst in custody.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all the relevant factors, including the defendant's criminal history, his addiction and mental health issues, his age, and the principle of Bugmy. The court took into account the defendant's early plea of guilty and his status as a young offender, but ultimately determined that a sentence of 4 years and 6 months was appropriate. The court also referred the defendant to the Drug Court to consider whether he should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order whilst in custody, in light of his addiction issues. The final orders of the court reflect this decision, with the defendant's sentence to commence on 17 August 2022, and his eligibility for parole on 16 August 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months.

2 The sentence is taken to commence on 17 August 2022.

3 The first date the Offender is eligible for parole is 16 August 2025.

4 Pursuant to s 18B of the Drug Court Act 2000 the Offender is referred to the Drug Court to consider whether he should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order whilst in custody.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Haddad [2023] NSWDC 393

Most Recent Citation

Chalmers v The Queen [2011] VSCA 436

Cases Citing This Decision

New South Wales Crime Commission v Hitchen [2025] NSWSC 1268
Citation 1 (Para 114)

…In respect of the 1985 Act, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered the construction of the words “used … in connection with” in R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 ( Hadad ). In that case, McInerny J, with whom Enderby and Allen JJ agreed, framed the consideration of construction in terms of whether the words “used … in co…
Karlsson v The King [2025] NSWDC 173
Citation 2 (Para 28)

…idered in a series of cases over the last 25 years but, if I may say so with respect, does not seem to have been resolved in any satisfactory way. In R v Haddad (2000) 116 A Crim A 312, Spigelman CJ at [73] to [75], when considered whether evidence obtained prior to the impropriety could be the subject of an objecti…
TL v The Queen [2022] HCATrans 134
Citation 3

…GORDON J: One of the very good examples is one given, I think ,by Justice Leeming in a case called El‑Haddad v The Queen (2015) 88 NSWLR 93 where his Honour talks about:…
New South Wales Crime Commission v Pettit [2021] NSWSC 980
Citation 4 (Para 44)

…In R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476, the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales considered whether the phrase “ used in, or in connection with ”, in s 3(1) of the now repealed Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1985 (NSW), which defined “ tainted property ” in the same terms as s 4(1)(a) of the CPOC Act, extracted…
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions v Nikro [2017] ACTSC 15
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…ch addressed the meaning of the phrase “used in connection with the commission of an offence” in similar statutory contexts, including R v Haddad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 (concerning the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1985 (NSW)); Taylor v Attorney-General (SA) (1991) 55 SASR 462 (concerning the Crimes (Confiscation…
Cini v The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2016] VSCA 227
Citation 6

…recently expressed relevant views, although the court did not need to decide this particular question of construction.[31] [30]NSW: R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476, re Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1985 (NSW) (‘ Hadad’ ); SA: Taylor v Attorney-General (SA) (1991) 55 SASR 462, re Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) A…
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hart [2016] QCA 215
Citation 7 (Para 7)

…ecutions (Cth) (1995) 79 A Crim R 514. ( Jeffrey No. 2 ). [45][1988] 2 Qd R 506. ( Drugs Misuse ) [46][1989] 1 Qd R 194. ( Ward ) [47](1989) 16 NSWLR 476. ( Hadad ) [48] George at [167].…
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions v Truong [2016] ACTMC 4
Citation 8

…n; Re Alexander (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 64 Henderson v Queensland [2014] HCA 52 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 R v Bolger (1989) 16 NSWLR 115 R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 R v Rintel (1991) 3 WAR 527 TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267 United States v One 1941 Pontiac Sedan 83 F Supp 999 (DC NY, 1948)…
Quickshelf No. 1 P/L v Queensland Police Service [2014] QMC 22
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…ents. The court considered the reasons of Kirby P and noted that in Lake there was no third party involved. The court in Fowkes considered R v. Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 and noted:…
Monk v R [2013] NZCA 564
Citation 10 (Para 5)

…p to an offender and sometimes to a third party when a forfeiture order is made. It stems from the operation of the Act and is disregarded: R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476. Section 15(2) refers to undue hardship. Here there can be no undue hardship to anyone other than [the offender] in the making of a forfeiture order…
CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hart; Yak 3 Investments P/L as t/tee for Yak 3 Discretionary Trust v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] QDC 60
Citation 11

…rles and Graham (1987) 33 A Crim R 60 Re Drugs Misuse Act 1986 [1988] 2 Qd R 506 Re George [1992] 2 Qd R 351; (1991) 57 A Crim R 356; BC9102462 State of Queensland v Brooks [2005] QSC 390 COUNSEL: Flanagan SC with del Villar for the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions The companies Yak 3…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Moran [2012] VSCA 154
Citation 12

…e the property could be said to have been ‘used in the commission of’ the offence.[10] [10] Taylor (1991) 55 SASR 462, 471; Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476, 481D; George (2008) 102 SASR 246, 261 [57]. 3.Whether there is a connection between the use of the property and the commission of the crime is a question of fact and de…
Chalmers v The Queen [2011] VSCA 436
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…cently expressed relevant views, although the Court did not need to decide this particular question of construction.[31] [30] NSW : R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476, re Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1985 (NSW) (‘ Hadad ’); SA : Taylor v Attorney-General (SA) (1991) 55 SASR 462, re Crimes (Confiscation of Profits)…
DPP v Dickfoss [2011] NTSC 4
Citation 14

…mmissioner of Superannuation v Hastings (1986) 70 ALR 625; Della Patrona v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) No. 2 (1993) 38 NSWLR 257; R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476; Rintel v The Queen (1991) 3 WAR 527, followed…
Commissioner of Police v Nelson HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-989 [2010] NZHC 1286
Citation 15

…p to an offender and sometimes to a third party when a forfeiture order is made. It stems from the operation of the Act and is disregarded: R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476. Section 15(2) refers to undue hardship. Here there can be no undue hardship to anyone other than Black in the making of a forfeiture order because t…
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v White [2009] WASC 62
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…rt of Criminal Appeal of Queensland expressed the view that it was necessary to find a 'substantial' connection. His Honour also considered R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 in which McInerney J (with whom the other members of the court agreed) said: … the intention of the legislature is that a wide scope should be given…
Director of Public Prosecutions v George [2008] SASC 330
Citation 17

…im R 310; Re An Application Pursuant to the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 [1988] 2 Qd R 506; R v Ward, Marles and Graham [1989] 1 Qd R 194; R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476, discussed. Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Chan [2001] NSWSC 151; (2001) 183 ALR 575; Rona v District Court of South Australia (1995) 63 SASR 223; R…
Studman v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2007] NSWCA 285
Citation 18

…NSW) CASES CITED: Diez v DPP (Cth) (2004) 62 NSWLR 1 DPP (Cth) v Jeffrey (1992) 58 A Crim R 310 DPP v Saxon (1992) 28 NSWLR 263 Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 Jeffrey v DPP (Cth) (1995) 79 A Crim R 514 King v DPP (2000) 114 A Crim R 14 Rintel (1991) 52 A Crim R 209 Saffron v DPP (Cth) (1989) 87 ALR 151 Taylor v Attorney-Ge…
Solicitor-General v Bartlett HC Auckland CIV 2006-485-2334 [2007] NZHC 684
Citation 19

…, on the basis that otherwise the purpose of the legislation itself would be frustrated: R v Lake (1989) 44 A Crim R 63 (CCA NSW); R v Haddad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476; 42 A Crim R 304 (CCA NSW).…
R v Shane Norman Zerafa [2003] NSWCCA 101
Citation 20

…d Trafficking Act 1985 CASES CITED: DPP v King (2000) 49 NSWLR 729 R v Steven Robert Devine [2001] TASSC 8 R v Galek (1993) 70 A Crim R 252 R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 R v Sultana (1992) 74 A Crim R 27 PARTIES : Crown (Applicant) Shane Norman Zerafa (Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60024/2003 COUNSEL: PJP Power SC (…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Wesam Abdullah [2002] NSWSC 938
Citation 21

…arts from a stolen vehicle. LEGISLATION CITED: Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, ss 13, 18(1) Crimes Act 1900, s 188 CASES CITED: R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v King (2000) 49 NSWLR 727 Director of Public Prosecutions v Garner (1999 - County Court of Victoria - unreport…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Devine [2001] TASSC 8
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…nd referred to with approval by the South Australian Full Court in Taylor v Attorney-General for South Australia (1991) 52 A Crim R 166. In R v Hadad (1989) 16 NSWLR 476, it was put to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal that "used in connection with" was a reference to a substantial connection. Thus it was a…
D.P.P. (NSW) v King [2000] NSWSC 394
Citation 23

…89, S.4,43,44,54 Criminal Assets Recovery Act,1990 S.10,12 Supreme Court Rules Part 40 Rule 9 CASES CITED: Sultana (1992) 74 A Crim R 27 R. v. Hadadd (1989) 16 NSWLR 476 R. v. Bolger (1989) 16 NSWLR 115 R. v. Presta (CCA, NSW, unreported 21 February 2000) DPP v. Logan Park Investments Pty. Ltd. (1995) 37 NSWLR 118 Mur…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
Citation 1 (Para 39)

…In Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73, the appellant was an Aboriginal man whose mental health issues, including schizophrenia, were exacerbated by his abuse of prohibited drugs. Button J said the following in respect of the causal link between mental health, substance abuse and criminal offending (emphasis added):…
Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209
Citation 2 (Para 2)

…entencing decision should have regard to the total criminality involved, different pathways are to be followed to bring about this result: Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209 at [58].…
Dixon v R [2019] NSWCCA 85
Citation 3 (Para 47)

…per boundary of a proportionate sentence: R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 at [25]; Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; Dixon v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 85. However, prior convictions can be relevant to the determination of whether leniency should be extended: Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58 at 21; Pattison v R…
Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216
Citation 4 (Para 8)

…ury was inflicted, the reason it was inflicted and the surrounding circumstances are relevant to the seriousness of the offending – see Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216 at [40].…
McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280
Citation 5 (Para 11)

…, the Crown, after referring to the guideline judgment of R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111, R v Thomas [2008] NSWCCA 269 at [22] and [91] and McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280 makes these observations as to the seven factors identified by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Henry as follows:…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 6 (Para 25)

…The principles enunciated by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 at [43]-[44] are highly relevant here:…
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Citation 7 (Para 26)

…The comments made by Simpson J in R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2, at [69] are also worth emphasising in the context of this case:…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 8

…moral culpability and sentence to be imposed are all very much a matter for a sentencing judge: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177]. Even so, in my opinion care should be taken not to take too prescriptive an approach, in a process of instinctive synthesi…
Braun v R [2008] NSWCCA 269
Citation 9 (Para 11)

…As to the aggravated robbery with wounding offence, the Crown, after referring to the guideline judgment of R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111, R v Thomas [2008] NSWCCA 269 at [22] and [91] and McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280 makes these observations as to the seven factors identified by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Henr…
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
Citation 10 (Para 47)

…ixon v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 85. However, prior convictions can be relevant to the determination of whether leniency should be extended: Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58 at 21; Pattison v R [2007] NSWCCA 186 at [39]. Moreover, his history to date in reoffending is obviously relevant to his prospects of reoffending in th…
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296
Citation 11 (Para 7)

…As is explained in cases such as R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296 at [27], the nature of the injury caused to the Complainant will, to a very significant degree, determine the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate sentence.…
Pattison v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 186
Citation 12 (Para 47)

…wever, prior convictions can be relevant to the determination of whether leniency should be extended: Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58 at 21; Pattison v R [2007] NSWCCA 186 at [39]. Moreover, his history to date in reoffending is obviously relevant to his prospects of reoffending in the future.…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…The Court stated in Attorney General's Application Under S37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 at [42]:…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 14 (Para 11)

…As to the aggravated robbery with wounding offence, the Crown, after referring to the guideline judgment of R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111, R v Thomas [2008] NSWCCA 269 at [22] and [91] and McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280 makes these observations as to the seven factors identified by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Henr…
R v Jenkins [1999] NSWCCA 110
Citation 15 (Para 12)

…bviously be affected by whether a weapon or weapons are used, and if so, the nature of the weapons and the manner in which they are used: R v Jenkins [1999] NSWCCA 110 at [5]. I find that the Offender used an approximately 15cm serrated steak edged knife during the robbery to strike the Complainant twice, causing no…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 16 (Para 47)

…prior convictions to determine the upper boundary of a proportionate sentence: R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 at [25]; Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; Dixon v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 85. However, prior convictions can be relevant to the determination of whether leniency should be extended: Shaw v R […
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31
Citation 17

…er [2007] NSWCCA 296 R v Thomas [2008] NSWCCA 269 Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58 Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Category: Sentence Parties: Rex (Crown) Andrew Junior Haddad (Offender) Representation: Counsel: C Shaw (Crown) S Talbert (Offen…

Legislation Cited

Drug Court Act 2000 (Qld) 18B, 5A
3 mentions
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) 22
2 mentions (from Para 9)
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 19)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Drug Court Act 1988 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Haddad [2023] NSWDC 393
Hearing dates:	31 August 2023
Decision date:	29 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	1. The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months. 2 The sentence is taken to commence on 17 August 2022. 3 The first date the Offender is eligible for parole is 16 August 2025. 4 Pursuant to s 18B of the Drug Court Act 2000 the Offender is referred to the Drug Court to consider whether he should be the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order whilst in custody.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – Reckless wounding – Aggravated robbery with wounding/grievous bodily harm – Dishonestly obtain property by deception – Early plea of guilty – Young offender – Significant criminal history – Offender on conditional liberty – Bugmy principle – Drug addition – Mental health
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure Act) 1999, s 25D(2)(a), s 21A, 3A Drug Court Act 2000, s 18B, 5A Mental Health Act 2007, s 22
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application Under S37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Benitez v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 166 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 243 FLR 28; 205 A Crim R 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Dixon v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 85 McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280 Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73. Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209 Pattison v R [2007] NSWCCA 186 R v Henry [1999] NSW CCA 111 RvJenkins [1999] NSWCCA 110 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296 R v Thomas [2008] NSWCCA 269 Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58 Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216 The Queenv De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Andrew Junior Haddad (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: C Shaw (Crown) S Talbert (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Veronica Love (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/029623 2022/243436
Publication restriction:	None