R v Hejazi - [2003] NSWCCA 383

CITATION: R v Hejazi [2003] NSWCCA 383

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 3 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1, 25; Smart AJ at 24

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - supply not less than the commercial quantity methylamphetamine - supply not less than the large commercial quantiy of mehtylamphetamine - whether sentence imposed was disproportionate to those imposed on co-offender.

CASES CITED: Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 57 NSWLR 146
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1996) 189 CLR 295
Regina v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
Regina v Koklas [2003] NSWCCA 302
R v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181
R v Richards [1981] 2 NSWLR 464

PARTIES :
Regina
Michael Mohammed Hejazi

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60339/03

COUNSEL: D Arnott (Crown)
M Bozic SC

SOLICITORS: C. K. Smith (Crown)
S. E. O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3380

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hock DCJ

- 9 -

60339/03

WOOD CJ at CL
SMART AJ

Regina v Michael Mohammed Hejazi

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the sentences imposed upon him by her Honour Hock DCJ, in the District Court, on 14 February 2003, following pleas of guilty which had been entered in the Local Court to one count of supplying not less than the commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine (count 1), and to one count of supplying not less than the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (count 2). Five offences of supplying a prohibited drug, and one count of supplying not less the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, were taken into account on a Form 1, when the applicant was sentenced on count 2.

2 The sentence imposed in relation to count 1 was one of imprisonment for a fixed term of four years, while that imposed, in relation to count 2, was one of imprisonment for nine years with a non-parole period of six years. The sentences were directed to be served concurrently with one another.

3 The facts are fully set out in her Honour’s reasons for judgment, and no issue is taken in relation to her analysis of the circumstances that gave rise to the pleas.

4 In brief summary, the applicant became the subject of an undercover police operation, in the course of which he supplied drugs to two undercover officers, and was detected, via telephone intercepts, in arranging sales to other customers.

5 The first three of the matters on the Form 1 relate to sales of small quantities of methylamphetamine, totalling 73.3 grams, which were made by the applicant to undercover operatives on 22 May 2000, 23 May 2000 and 7 June 2000, after they met…

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 Hejazi

Details

AGLC: R v Hejazi [2003] NSWCCA 383
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 383
Decision Date: 3 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hejazi, the respondent, Hamid Hejazi, sought leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence for his involvement in the supply of not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, as well as not less than the large commercial quantity of the same drug. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to those imposed on his co-offenders.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in comparison to the sentences imposed on his co-offenders. The respondent argued that the sentence was disproportionate and should be reduced, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate and should be upheld.

The court considered the principles of sentencing proportionality and the specific circumstances of the case. It noted that the respondent had played a significant role in the drug trafficking operation, and that the quantity of drugs involved warranted a substantial sentence. However, the court also recognised that the respondent had shown remorse, cooperated with authorities, and had no prior criminal history. The court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and therefore denied the respondent's application for leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the respondent's application for leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent remained in place, reflecting the gravity of his involvement in the drug trafficking operation and the need to deter such criminal conduct.

Orders