R v Issa - [2009] VSC 633

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

1709 of 2008

THE QUEEN

CHAFIC ISSA

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 November 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Issa
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 633

---

Attempt to pervert the course of Justice, Traffick large commercial quantity, dealing with proceeds of crime – Large commercial enterprise “the Company”. Twelve years and six months, minimum eight years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Kidd	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr S Zebrowski	Balmer and Associates

HER HONOUR:

Chafic Issa, you have pleaded guilty to one count (Count 1) of attempting to pervert the course of justice between 31 March 2006 and 5 May 2007; Count 2 trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine between 30 July 2006 and 5 May 2007; Count 3 dealing with approximately $1,735,500, knowing it to be the proceeds of crime between 30 July 2006 and 5 May 2007; and, Count 4 possession of cannabis on 5 June 2007.

You were born on 10 January 1964 and you are now 44 years of age. You were aged between 41 and 42 at the time of the commission of the offences. The first count on the presentment relates to the assistance rendered by you to Mr A in assisting him to flee from the jurisdiction and harbouring him in a holiday house at Bonnie Doon. Counts 2 and 3 relate to your involvement in a drug trafficking organisation of which Mr A is alleged to be the principal.

The Crown in this case tendered and read to the court an opening of some 30 pages. I do not intend to repeat all of that material but will try and summarise further what it is that is put before the court as to your involvement. The maximum penalties for the offences you have pleaded guilty to are in relation to Count 1 attempting to pervert the course of justice – 25 years; in respect of Count 2 trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – life imprisonment; Count 3 dealing with the proceeds of crime – 15 years imprisonment; Count 4 the possession of cannabis - as it was for personal use, a fine.

In relation to the drug offences, you, together with at least nine other men, were involved in the activities of a large illicit drug trafficking enterprise known as “the Company”. The Company was involved in the manufacture and distribution of very large quantities of methylamphetamine, as well as other matters which do not concern you, together with money laundering. The Company was run allegedly by Mr A from 1 January 2006 until his arrest in Greece on 5 June 2007. Mr A exercised control over various aspects of the Company including directly and personally issuing orders to various people involved in the Company.

You were one of the…

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 Issa

Details

AGLC: R v Issa [2009] VSC 633
Case: [2009] VSC 633
Decision Date: 24 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court of Appeal was brought by the appellant, who had been convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice, trafficking a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The case originated from a significant investigation into a large commercial enterprise, referred to as “the Company”, which was involved in the importation and distribution of large quantities of drugs. The appellant had been sentenced to twelve years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years and six months.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had erred in his calculation of the appropriate sentence. The court needed to determine if there were any errors in the trial judge's approach to sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and the principles applied in determining the appropriate sentence. It found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offences, the appellant's role within the enterprise, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had correctly calculated the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders altering the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders