R v Jehad Jodeh - [2020] NSWDC 18

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jehad Jodeh [2020] NSWDC 18
Hearing dates: 04 February 2020
Date of orders: 07 February 2020
Decision date: 07 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: DCJ Yehia SC
Decision:
See [134] – [136]

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence assessment of objective gravity where offender voluntarily ceases involvement in conspiracy – “Common sense” inference that the offender was motivated by financial reward – Assessment of the role of the offender in the conspiracy
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Cases Cited: R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273
R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228
R v Kaldor [2004] 150 A Crim R 271
R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234
R v Elomar; R v Hasan; R v Cheikho; R v Chiekho; R v Jamal [2010] NSWSC 10
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Texts Cited: American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 5th ed, 2013)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Jehad Jodeh
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Ms P McEniery (Crown)
Mr H Dhanji SC (J Jodeh)

File Number(s): 2017/00241009

Judgment

Jehad Jodeh, the offender, comes before me to be sentenced in respect of one offence that, between 10 November 2016 and 8 August 2017, he did conspire with Moustafa Ibrahim, Ryan Watsford, Moustafa Dib and others to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor, namely pseudoephedrine. The offence is contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 307.11(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.
When I sentence him for this offence, I take into account an offence of dealing in money being reckless as to the risk of the property becoming an instrument of crime. This offence is contrary to s 400.6(2) of the Criminal Code. It is contained in a s 16BA schedule and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
The threshold for the commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor is 1.2 kg. The amounts discussed during the currency of the conspiracy ranged between 2500 kg and 600 kg of pseudoephedrine. It is relevant to note at the outset that the Statement of Facts tendered in the proceedings discloses criminal conduct on the part of a number of individuals relating to conspiracies to import illicit substances into Australia. This offender is to be sentenced for his part in one conspiracy only – the specific conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine.
The Statement of Facts discloses other criminal conduct undertaken by the offender’s associates for the purpose of providing context and background. Ibrahim, Watford and Dib have not been charged with the conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine. They have either been sentenced or will be sentenced by me in respect of other offences arising from the criminal enterprise or enterprises in which they were involved.
The offender pleaded guilty to the offence at an early stage of the proceedings and was committed…

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 Jehad Jodeh

Details

AGLC: R v Jehad Jodeh [2020] NSWDC 18
Case: [2020] NSWDC 18
Decision Date: 07 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jehad Jodeh, the defendant was charged with offences related to his involvement in a conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant. The dispute centred on the objective gravity of the offending and the role played by the defendant in the conspiracy, particularly given that he voluntarily ceased his involvement before the importation was completed.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate weight to assign to the defendant’s voluntary cessation of his involvement in the conspiracy, and how this factor should be balanced against the objective seriousness of the crime. The court also needed to assess the role of the defendant within the conspiracy, taking into account evidence of his motivations, which appeared to be financially driven. These legal issues were critical in determining the appropriate sentence, given the potential for substantial penalties under the relevant legislation.

The court found that the defendant's voluntary cessation of his involvement, although relevant, did not entirely mitigate the objective gravity of the offence. It was inferred that the defendant's primary motivation was financial gain, which underscored the seriousness of his involvement. The court placed significant weight on the nature and scale of the conspiracy, noting that even though the defendant withdrew, the potential harm to the community was considerable. The court concluded that the defendant's role, while not the most central, was nonetheless significant. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, ensuring it was proportionate to the offending while also serving as a deterrent.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [134] – [136]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Jehad Jodeh [2020] NSWDC 18
Hearing dates:	04 February 2020
Date of orders:	07 February 2020
Decision date:	07 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	DCJ Yehia SC
Decision:	See [134] – [136]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence assessment of objective gravity where offender voluntarily ceases involvement in conspiracy – “Common sense” inference that the offender was motivated by financial reward – Assessment of the role of the offender in the conspiracy
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Cases Cited:	R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273 R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228 R v Kaldor [2004] 150 A Crim R 271 R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234 R v Elomar; R v Hasan; R v Cheikho; R v Chiekho; R v Jamal [2010] NSWSC 10 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Texts Cited:	American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 5th ed, 2013)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jehad Jodeh Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Ms P McEniery (Crown) Mr H Dhanji SC (J Jodeh)
File Number(s):	2017/00241009