Legal Research
Cases
R v Hameed

R v Hameed

Case [2001] NSWCCA 287 2 August 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
123 A Crim R 213

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Hameed [2001] NSWCCA 287

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60391/00

HEARING DATE(S): 13 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 August 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Syed Tareq Hameed

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Sperling J at 7

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0312

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Howie DCJ

COUNSEL : D M Woodburne for the Crown
T A Game SC with M Buscombe for the Applicant

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Murphy's Lawyers Inc. for the Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - combined discount for early plea of guilty and for assistance to the authorities - whether sentence after such discount excessive - whether strength of Crown case relevant to utilitarian value of plea - whether strengthening of Crown case by assistance to the authorities relevant to the plea as evidence of contrition - ambit of "special circumstances" - dismissal of appeal against sentence on ground that the Court would not impose a lesser sentence if applicant were resentenced

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s442B
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s23, s44
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s5, s6
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s25, s33
Sentencing Act 1989, s5

CASES CITED:
Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289
Bruce [2000] NSWCCA 39
Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103
Chu (NSWCCA, 16 October 1998, unreported)
Dang (NSWCCA, 7 November 1997, unreported)
GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376
Giurgis [2000] NSWCCA 129
Griffiths (1989) 167 CLR 372
Kenworthy (NSW CCA, 3 August 1995, unreported)
Lewis (1998) 100 A Crim R 361
McDonald (NSW CCA, 12 October 1998, unreported)
McLear (NSWCCA, 1 September 1992, unreported)
Moffatt (NSW CCA, 21 June 1994, unreported)
Moffit (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
Morrissey (NSW CCA, 15 July 1994, unreported)
Olbrich (NSWCCA, 6 July 1998, unreported)
Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446
PPB [1999] NSWCCA 36
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSW CCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
S [2000] NSWCCA 13; (2000) 111 A Crim R 225
Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313
Stone (1995) 85 A Crim R 436
Traicioni (1990) 49 A Crim R 417

DECISION: (1) Grant leave to appeal; (2) Appeal dismissed.

- 1 -IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

Simpson J
Sperling J

2 August 2001

60391/00 Regina v Syed Tareq HAMEED

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Sperling J and I agree with the orders he proposes. I wish to add a little about the first ground of appeal. That is the ground concerning the credit afforded to the applicant in relation to his pleas of guilty.

2 It must be borne in mind that Howie DCJ sentenced the applicant on 29 March 2000, before publication of the guideline judgment of this court in R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSW CCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383. That judgment significantly…

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 Hameed

Details

AGLC: R v Hameed [2001] NSWCCA 287
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 287
Decision Date: 2 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hameed involved a criminal appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted of multiple charges, including drug trafficking and possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply. The primary dispute was whether the sentence, which was reduced due to an early guilty plea and assistance to the authorities, was excessive. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the combined discount for both an early plea of guilty and for assistance to the authorities, the relevance of the strength of the Crown case to the utilitarian value of the plea, and whether the strengthening of the Crown case by the appellant's assistance should be considered evidence of contrition. The court was also tasked with determining the ambit of "special circumstances" and whether the Court of Appeal would impose a lesser sentence if the appellant were resentenced.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the combined discount for the early plea and assistance was not excessive, given the appellant's significant cooperation with authorities and the overall circumstances of the case. The court held that the strength of the Crown case was not relevant to the utilitarian value of the plea, as the discount should be based on the benefits of the plea and assistance rather than the strength of the case against the appellant. The court further held that the assistance provided by the appellant, which led to the arrest of other individuals involved in drug trafficking, demonstrated a level of contrition. The court concluded that the appellant's actions constituted "special circumstances" warranting a reduced sentence. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that it would not impose a lesser sentence if the appellant were resentenced.

Orders