Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jawad Hadid [2016] NSWDC 376
Hearing dates: 21 October 2016
Date of orders: 21 October 2016
Decision date: 21 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge AC Scotting
Decision:
1 The offender is convicted of each offence.
2 Pursuant to section 11 Crims (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I adjourn the sentence proceedings part heard before me to 19 May 2017.

Catchwords: CRIINAL LAW – offence - plea of guilty – drugs – supply prohibited drug – firearms – possess prohibited firearm – possess unauthorised pistol
SENTENCE – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – objective seriousness – specific deterrence – general deterrence – prospects of rehabilitation
SENTENCE PRINCIPLES – deferral of sentencing for rehabilitation - offender’s progress in current residential rehabilitation program – “Griffith’s Remand”
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s.93G(1)(a)(i)
Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 s.25(1)
Firearms Act 1996 ss. 7, 66(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss.11, 21A(3)(g)
Cases Cited: R v Farrell [2014] NSWCCA 30
R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255
R v Brown (2009) 193 A Crim R 573
R v Rayment (2010) 200 A Crim R 48
R v Robinson (NSWCCA, 15 September 1995, Unreported)
R v Leahy [2004] NSWCCA 148
R v Trindall (2002) 133 A Crim R 119
Cramp v R [2208] NSWCCA 40
R v Kristic [2005] NSWCCA 391
R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
DO v R [2010] NSWCCA 182
R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32
R v Goktas [2004] NSWCCA 296
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Yang v R [2007] NSWCCA 37
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jawad Hadid (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G James AM QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Macquarie Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/00141472

Judgment

Jawad Hadid (the offender) appears for sentence after pleading guilty in the District Court to one count of each of the following offences:

supply prohibited drug contrary to section 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (count 1);

possess loaded firearm in public place contrary to section 93G(1)(a)(i) Crimes Act 1900 (count 2);

possess firearm with defaced identification contrary to section 66(b) Firearms Act 1996 (Count 3); and

possess unauthorised pistol contrary to section 7 Firearms Act 1996 (Count 4).

The maximum penalty for Count 1 is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220 000.
The maximum penalty for Count 2 is 10 years imprisonment.
The maximum penalty for Count 3 is 14 years imprisonment.
The maximum penalty for Count 4 is 14 years imprisonment and parliament has specified a standard non-parole period of 3 years.
During the course of the sentence hearing the offender raised the possibility of deferring the sentence proceedings pursuant 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.

Continue reading R v Jawad Hadid

Details

AGLC: R v Jawad Hadid [2016] NSWDC 376
Case: [2016] NSWDC 376
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jawad Hadid, was charged with offences relating to drug supply and firearms possession. The charges included supplying a prohibited drug, possessing a prohibited firearm, and possessing an unauthorised pistol. The case was heard before the court where the defendant pleaded guilty to all charges. The primary legal issues before the court were the principles and objectives of sentencing in light of the defendant's guilty plea and the specific circumstances of the offences. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the crimes, the potential for rehabilitation, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The court assessed the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case. It noted the defendant's guilty plea, which was a significant mitigating factor, as well as his progress in a residential rehabilitation program. The court also considered the gravity of the offences, the need for specific deterrence to prevent the defendant from reoffending, and the broader societal need for general deterrence. The court acknowledged the defendant’s participation in a rehabilitation program, referred to as a "Griffith's Remand," which demonstrated his commitment to reform and potentially reduced his likelihood of reoffending.

Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty of all charges and decided to adjourn the sentencing to allow further evaluation of the defendant's rehabilitation progress. The adjournment aimed to ensure that the sentencing reflected the defendant's current situation and potential for rehabilitation. This decision aligned with sentencing principles that prioritise rehabilitation and deterrence, while also ensuring that the community's safety and the law's integrity are upheld.

The orders included convicting the defendant on all charges and adjourning the sentencing to a later date to review the defendant's rehabilitation progress. This approach allows the court to make a more informed sentencing decision that balances the needs of justice with the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The offender is convicted of each offence.

2 Pursuant to section 11 Crims (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I adjourn the sentence proceedings part heard before me to 19 May 2017.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Jawad Hadid [2016] NSWDC 376

Most Recent Citation

Mohammed Buhora by his Tutor Sheilana Buhora v Iftyaz Ali Khan; Ziabudeen Buhora v Iftyaz Ali Khan; Sheilana Buhora v Iftyaz Ali Khan [2019] NSWDC 517

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Mohammed Buhora by his Tutor Sheilana Buhora v Iftyaz Ali Khan; Ziabudeen Buhora v Iftyaz Ali Khan; Sheilana Buhora v Iftyaz Ali Khan
[2019] NSWDC 517 Para 47

…idering this issue, I refer to the statement of principles by me in Choukor v Spiroski [2016] NSWDC 358 at [21]-[28]; by Gibson DCJ in Bird v Connell [2016] NSWDC 376 and by Montgomery DCJ in Margaret Baker v Ross Baker [2017] NSWDC 93. In the case I referred to decided by me of Choukor v Spiroski , I note the gene…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

R v Farrell
[2014] NSWCCA 30 Para 7

…The rationale for the deferral of sentencing pursuant to section 11 is that it may aid in the determination of the appropriate sentence; R v Farrell [2014] NSWCCA 30 at [58].…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 65

…n cases where the offender suffers from mental condition because such an offender is not an appropriate person to be made an example of: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [53]-[54]. The authorities do not mandate an entire disregard of general or specific deterrence by the sentencing judge: The extent of the reducti…
Do v R
[2010] NSWCCA 182 Para 56

…fence the fact that the pistol was loaded increases the objective seriousness of the offence because of the danger it presented to the public: Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182. The criminality of the offence will also be increased where the offender possesses the firearm as part of their involvement in crime, such as supply…
Palijan v R
[2010] NSWCCA 142 Para 65

…isregard of general or specific deterrence by the sentencing judge: The extent of the reduction depends on the circumstances of the case: Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142 at [27], R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81, R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48 and R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91.…
Butters v R
[2010] NSWCCA 1 Para 59

…give evidence on this point and accordingly I must exercise very considerable caution in relying on the statement to the psychologist: Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 at [18].…
R v Todorovic
[2008] NSWCCA 49 Para 67

…At that time that he was introduced to drugs the offender did not have the capacity to make an informed choice: R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49. In such cases the rehabilitative aspects of sentencing should assume a more significant role.…
Cramp v R
[2008] NSWCCA 40 Para 55

…he legislation that the Courts must seek to implement. They require “strict control” of firearms and “strict adherence” to the law; Cramp v R [2008] NSWCCA 40 at [52]. The legislation is intended to deter and punish the possession of firearms per se; R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391 at [14]. It applies to honest citize…
Yang v R
[2007] NSWCCA 37 Para 55

…umber is evidence that ultimately it was intended that the pistol would be used for a criminal purpose, but not necessarily by the offender; Yang v R [2007] NSWCCA 37 at [18]. In the present case the offender accepted the pistol to hold for its owner in the condition it was given to him. In so doing he assisted in…
R v Krstic
[2005] NSWCCA 391 Para 55

…to the law; Cramp v R [2008] NSWCCA 40 at [52]. The legislation is intended to deter and punish the possession of firearms per se; R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391 at [14]. It applies to honest citizens and not just to disarm the criminally minded; R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 at [53].…
R v ABS
[2005] NSWCCA 255 Para 8

…n 11 remand should not be ordered where the objective seriousness of the offences requires the imposition of substantial custodial sentences; R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255…
R v Lawrence
[2005] NSWCCA 91 Para 65

…stances of the case: Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142 at [27], R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81, R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48 and R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91.…
R v Amurao
[2005] NSWCCA 32 Para 56

…will also be increased where the offender possesses the firearm as part of their involvement in crime, such as supplying prohibited drugs; R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32 at [69]. However, possession for a non-criminal purpose is generally not regarded as a matter in mitigation; R v Kristic at [14].…
Regina v Goktas
[2004] NSWCCA 296 Para 57

…of the offender does not necessarily affect the criminality, but possession for a short period may reduce the seriousness of the offence; R v Goktas [2004] NSWCCA 296 at [26]. I do not consider that the firearms offences could have been dealt with summarily. The seriousness of each count is maximum penalties I have…
R v Tolley
[2004] NSWCCA 165 Para 55

…firearms per se; R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391 at [14]. It applies to honest citizens and not just to disarm the criminally minded; R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 at [53].…
R v Leahy
[2004] NSWCCA 148 Para 10

…In R v Leahy [2004] NSWCCA 148; the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that section 11 remand may be appropriate where a fulltime custodial sentence remains the most likely outcome, even if rehabilitation has been achieved, so that the court can gain a more reliable assessment of the offender’s prospects of rehabili…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 66

…most direct cause of his offending behaviour. Addiction is not normally an excuse for committing offences, but considered to be a choice: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346. In this case, the offender turned to drugs at about 14 years of age to alleviate the psychological symptoms following childhood sexual abuse. The offe…
Cramp v R
[2208] NSWCCA 40

…NSWCCA, 15 September 1995, Unreported) R v Leahy [2004] NSWCCA 148 R v Trindall (2002) 133 A Crim R 119 Cramp v R [2208] NSWCCA 40 R v Kristic [2005] NSWCCA 391 R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 DO v R [2010] NSWCCA 182 R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32 R v Goktas [2004] NSWCCA 296 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Yang v R [2007]…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
11, 21A(3)(g) 3 mentions (from Para 6)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
66(b), 7 3 mentions (from Para 3)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
93G(1)(a)(i) 2 mentions (from Para 2)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
25(1) 1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Jawad Hadid [2016] NSWDC 376
Hearing dates:	21 October 2016
Date of orders:	21 October 2016
Decision date:	21 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge AC Scotting
Decision:	1 The offender is convicted of each offence. 2 Pursuant to section 11 Crims (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I adjourn the sentence proceedings part heard before me to 19 May 2017.
Catchwords:	CRIINAL LAW – offence - plea of guilty – drugs – supply prohibited drug – firearms – possess prohibited firearm – possess unauthorised pistol SENTENCE – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – objective seriousness – specific deterrence – general deterrence – prospects of rehabilitation SENTENCE PRINCIPLES – deferral of sentencing for rehabilitation - offender’s progress in current residential rehabilitation program – “Griffith’s Remand”
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 s.93G(1)(a)(i) Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 s.25(1) Firearms Act 1996 ss. 7, 66(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss.11, 21A(3)(g)
Cases Cited:	R v Farrell [2014] NSWCCA 30 R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255 R v Brown (2009) 193 A Crim R 573 R v Rayment (2010) 200 A Crim R 48 R v Robinson (NSWCCA, 15 September 1995, Unreported) R v Leahy [2004] NSWCCA 148 R v Trindall (2002) 133 A Crim R 119 Cramp v R [2208] NSWCCA 40 R v Kristic [2005] NSWCCA 391 R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 DO v R [2010] NSWCCA 182 R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32 R v Goktas [2004] NSWCCA 296 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Yang v R [2007] NSWCCA 37 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142 R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81 R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48 R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Jawad Hadid (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G James AM QC (Offender) Solicitors: C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Macquarie Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2015/00141472