R v Hasani - [2015] ACTSC 161

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hasani
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 161
Hearing Date:	17 June 2015
DecisionDate:	17 June 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for a period of two years.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – traffic in trafficable quantity of cannabis – cultivate a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants – good character – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 603(5), 616(5) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 171(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT) schs 1, 2
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Fedrije Hasani (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 203 of 2014; SCC 204 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

The offender adhered to pleas of guilty to the following four principal offences:

(a)Between 30 April 2013 and 11 May 2013, traffic in trafficable quantity of cannabis, contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
(b)Between 30 June 2013 and 10 July 2013, traffic in trafficable quantity of cannabis, contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code.
(c)Between 25 January 2014 and 4 April 2014, traffic in trafficable quantity of cannabis, contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code.
(d)On or about 3 April 2014, cultivate a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants with the intention to sell the plants or believing someone else intended to do so, contrary to s 616(5) of the Criminal Code.

Each of the four offences carries a maximum available penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a substantial fine.

The trafficable quantity in relation to trafficking in cannabis is 300 grams and the commercial quantity is 30 kilograms: sch 1 of the Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT). The trafficable quantity in relation to the cultivation of cannabis plants is 10 plants and the commercial quantity is 100 plants: sch 2 of the Criminal Code Regulation.

There is a related offence that, on 3 April 2014, the offender possessed a prohibited substance, cannabis, contrary to s 171(1)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). This matter was transferred to the Supreme Court when the four principal offences were committed to trial under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

The pleas of guilty for the principal offences were entered shortly after the matter was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The pleas were entered in the face of a very strong Crown case. The prosecution evidence included admissions, DNA and fingerprint evidence and material found on execution of a search warrant. Nevertheless, the pleas of guilty have a significant utilitarian value. The offender should receive a discount on sentence in the range of 15 to 20%.

Facts

The first offence, trafficking in a trafficable quantity of…

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 Hasani

Details

AGLC: R v Hasani [2015] ACTSC 161
Case: [2015] ACTSC 161
Decision Date: 17 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hasani involved the defendant, Hasani, who was charged with cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants and trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Hasani given his background, including his good character and potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence for Hasani, considering the seriousness of the offences, his background, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and the impact of incarceration on Hasani’s life and future prospects.

The court acknowledged Hasani’s good character and his potential for rehabilitation, noting his lack of a prior criminal record and his expressed remorse. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences, which involved cultivating and trafficking a significant quantity of cannabis. Ultimately, the court decided that a suspended sentence would be appropriate, reflecting both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The court imposed a total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, which was suspended upon Hasani entering into a good behaviour order for a period of two years. This decision aimed to provide Hasani with an opportunity to rehabilitate while also serving a period of supervision and accountability.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for a period of two 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.