R v Islam; R v Ahmed

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Islam; R v Ahmed [2019] NSWDC 546
Hearing dates: 15 July 2019
Date of orders: 15 July 2019
Decision date: 15 July 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

Islam – An aggregate term of three years, ten months with a non-parole period of two years, eight months: at [29].
Ahmed - An aggregate term of two years, six months with a non-parole period of one year, seven months: at [43].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Financial gain — In company — Multiple victims — Planned or organised criminal activity — Record of previous convictions — Breach of conditional liberty
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — De Simoni/double counting
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances — Drug addiction — Mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Kemp v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 281
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Tariqul Islam (Offender)
Mustafa Ahmed (aka Liton Sheikh) (Offender)
Representation:

Ms Ng (Crown)

 

Mr Ainsworth (Counsel for the Offender – Islam)

  Mr James (Counsel for the Offender – Ahmed)
File Number(s): 18/27691; 18/91549; 17/257074

Judgment

  1. Tariqul Islam and Mustafa Ahmed (also known as Lition Sheikh), appear for sentence, both having pleaded guilty to one count under s 93T of the Crimes Act 1900 of participate in criminal group, and one count under s 192J of deal with identification information, which both carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment with no standard non‑parole period. These penalties are yardsticks to be taken into account in the sentencing process, as well as the purposes of sentencing in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

  2. The offenders pleaded guilty at an early opportunity and it is common ground that a 25% discount on any term of imprisonment should be allowed for the utilitarian value of the plea. It is also common ground that a period of fulltime custody is required in both cases and it is unnecessary for me to consider any alternatives.

  3. The offending was detected by the Financial Crimes Squad, who were investigating fraudulent transactions arising from a credit card skimming operation, said to be overseen and organised by Mr Islam, although as Mr Ainsworth for counsel points out, there was probably someone else involved beyond those who have been dealt with, and who are here for sentence today.

  4. It is common ground that Mr Islam’s sentence should commence on 18 November 2018, bearing in mind questions of totality and the fact that he has served a sentence for other fraud offences imposed by Armitage ADCJ, on 20 April 2018.

  5. The Crown bundles contain details of the offending and the records of the various co‑offenders, Mr Rabbi and Mr Alam, as well as Mr Syed Rahman, who was to be dealt with today but his case has…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Islam; R v Ahmed 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 546
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Islam; R v Ahmed, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for two individuals convicted of various criminal activities. The appellants, Islam and Ahmed, were found guilty of multiple offences, including fraud, conspiracy, and breach of parole conditions. The legal issues before the court encompassed both aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to sentencing, as well as considerations of parity between co-offenders and special circumstances impacting the individual defendants.

The court meticulously assessed the aggravating factors, such as the financial gain derived from the criminal activities, the presence of multiple victims, and the premeditated nature of the offences. Additionally, the court noted the appellants' criminal records and the breach of conditional liberty. On the mitigating side, the court considered the appellants' pleas of guilty, expressions of remorse, and potential for rehabilitation. The court also weighed special circumstances, including drug addiction and mental health issues.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating ones, leading to sentences that reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court carefully considered the principle of parity in sentencing co-offenders, ensuring that the sentences were proportionate to the respective roles and contributions of each appellant. Ultimately, the court sentenced Islam to an aggregate term of three years and ten months, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months, and Ahmed to an aggregate term of two years and six months, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months.

The final orders of the court were that Islam would serve a total of three years and ten months in prison, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. Ahmed was sentenced to two years and six months in prison, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months. These sentences were reflective of the court's comprehensive evaluation of both the aggravating and mitigating factors presented in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Islam – An aggregate term of three years, ten months with a non-parole period of two years, eight months: at [29].

Ahmed - An aggregate term of two years, six months with a non-parole period of one year, seven months: at [43].

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.