R v Hannachi; R v Chamon - [2019] NSWDC 911

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hannachi; R v Chamon [2019] NSWDC 911
Hearing dates: 17 June 2019
Decision date: 19 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Hannachi – Sentenced to term of imprisonment of 6 years; non-parole period 3 years 7 months imprisonment.
Confiscation order for $13,230 cash
Chamon – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 yrs; non-parole period 3 years imprisonment
Catchwords:
Hannachi
CRIME – sentence – supply prohibited drug � commercial quantity – MDMA - take part in supply prohibited drug � commercial quantity – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – totality of offending – in charge of street level dealers - foreign national – plea of guilty - special circumstances - parity
Chamon
CRIME – sentence - knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – participate in criminal group – supply prohibited drug – MDMA – vital role – totality of offending – parity – prior good character – plea of guilty - special circumstances – foreign national
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application (No 1) [2002] 56 NSWLR 147
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
Hili and Jones v R [2011] HCA 45
Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 106
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Moss v R [2013] NSWCCA 242
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
Olbrich v R (1999) 199 CLR 270
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v XX (2009) 198 A Crim R 38
Shi v R [2004] NSWCCA 135
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Cheker Hannachi (offender)
Florian Julian Henry Chamon (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Taylor (DPP)
Mr N Funnell (offender Hannachi)
Mr G James QC (offender Chamon)
Solicitors:
Mr Simons (DPP)

File Number(s): Hannachi 2018/00108314; Chamon 2018/00108370
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Gentlemen, you do not have to stand up, but it is my practice to tell prisoners in advance what sentence is to be imposed. Most people being sentenced are primarily interested in what sentence is imposed rather than why it is imposed, and unless there is a security reason not to do, I do not see any reason to deny someone the information that is most important to them provided at the earliest opportunity.
Before I get into my reasons, and before I tell you what is to be the sentence, I am sorry to keep you in suspense, but I have distinguished between you because you two must understand that you are each charged with different offences with different maximum penalties and the true extent of your criminal conduct is not known to me because I am captive to the agreed facts and the charges that have been brought against you.
The Prosecutor produced a document called an organisation chart or something similar which purported to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hannachi; R v Chamon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWDC 911
Decision Date: 19 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Hannachi and Chamon, were found guilty of drug-related offences and brought before the court for sentencing. Both appellants had pleaded guilty to charges including supplying prohibited drugs, specifically MDMA, in commercial quantities, and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. The case involved both foreign nationals and required the court to consider the totality of their offending, including their roles within the criminal enterprise. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences that reflect the severity of the crimes while considering mitigating factors such as pleas of guilty and the appellants' roles in the criminal activities.

The primary legal issues for the court involved assessing the culpability and roles of the appellants within the criminal activities, the commercial scale of the drug supply, and the need to ensure parity in sentencing between co-offenders. Additionally, the court had to weigh the appellants' prior good characters against their current offences and consider any special circumstances that might influence the sentencing. The court also needed to balance the principle of parity, ensuring that similar offences committed by co-offenders receive comparable sentences, with the individual circumstances of each appellant.

The court considered the totality of the offending, taking into account the significant roles both appellants played in the drug supply operation. Hannachi was in charge of street-level dealers and was found to be deeply involved in the supply of commercial quantities of MDMA. Chamon, while not as central, played a vital role in the criminal group. The court acknowledged their pleas of guilty and the special circumstances, including their status as foreign nationals, as mitigating factors. Despite these considerations, the court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence. In sentencing, the court ensured parity between the appellants, with Hannachi receiving a slightly harsher sentence reflecting his more significant role in the operation. The final orders included imprisonment terms of six years for Hannachi, with a non-parole period of three years and seven months, and a confiscation order for $13,230 in cash. Chamon was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Hannachi – Sentenced to term of imprisonment of 6 years; non-parole period 3 years 7 months imprisonment.

Confiscation order for $13,230 cash

Chamon – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 yrs; non-parole period 3 years imprisonment

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hannachi; R v Chamon [2019] NSWDC 911
Hearing dates:	17 June 2019
Decision date:	19 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Hannachi – Sentenced to term of imprisonment of 6 years; non-parole period 3 years 7 months imprisonment. Confiscation order for $13,230 cash Chamon – Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 yrs; non-parole period 3 years imprisonment
Catchwords:	Hannachi CRIME – sentence – supply prohibited drug � commercial quantity – MDMA - take part in supply prohibited drug � commercial quantity – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – totality of offending – in charge of street level dealers - foreign national – plea of guilty - special circumstances - parity Chamon CRIME – sentence - knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – participate in criminal group – supply prohibited drug – MDMA – vital role – totality of offending – parity – prior good character – plea of guilty - special circumstances – foreign national
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application (No 1) [2002] 56 NSWLR 147 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 Hili and Jones v R [2011] HCA 45 Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 616 Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 106 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Moss v R [2013] NSWCCA 242 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 Olbrich v R (1999) 199 CLR 270 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 R v XX (2009) 198 A Crim R 38 Shi v R [2004] NSWCCA 135
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Cheker Hannachi (offender) Florian Julian Henry Chamon (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Taylor (DPP) Mr N Funnell (offender Hannachi) Mr G James QC (offender Chamon) Solicitors: Mr Simons (DPP)
File Number(s):	Hannachi 2018/00108314; Chamon 2018/00108370
Publication restriction:	No