R v Kamara; R v Kassem

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kamara; R v Kassem [2019] NSWDC 947
Hearing dates: 19 July 2019
Date of orders: 19 July 2019
Decision date: 19 July 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

Kamara: An aggregate term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of one year, ten months;

Kassem: An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, 10 months with a non-parole period of one year, eight months: at [48].

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Ongoing supply — Supply prohibited drug

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Planned or organised criminal activity

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse — Rehabilitation

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Factual basis for sentence — Form 1 offences — General principles — Multiple offence — Objective seriousness

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284

R v CBK [2002] NSWCCA 457

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

Omaru Kamara (Offender)

Ahmed Kassem (Offender)
Representation:

Mr N Leach (Crown)

Mr E Tabchouri (Solicitor for Kamara)

Mr G Stanton (Counsel for Kassem)
File Number(s): 2019/384351; 2017/384352; 2018/311439

Judgment

  1. Two relatively young men, Omaru Kamara and Ahmed Kassem, aged 30 and 31  respectively, came under the attention of a police strike force which was established to investigate the street level of supply of prohibited drugs from within licensed premises in the Kings Cross area. The strike force was established to investigate the ongoing drug supply by these two men.

  2. Investigators used a variety of investigative techniques including authorised persons to make purchases, conducting covert surveillance and lawfully intercepting communications from both of the offender’s telephones. It was discovered during the course of their investigation that Kamara and Kassem had run their businesses from various hotels within the Sydney CBD where they received telephone calls from people known to them and these people either placed orders on behalf of customers at clubs or for themselves. They supplied cocaine and MDMA.

  3. They appear for sentence, both having pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, which justifies a 25% discount on a term of imprisonment due to the utilitarian value of the plea, facing a number of serious charges involving drug dealing and supply.

  4. The Crown Prosecutor’s documents have unusually but very helpfully specified the individual charges each of them are facing together with the charges taken into account in some cases on a Form 1 and the principal charges…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Kamara; R v Kassem 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 947
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The two appellants, Kamara and Kassem, were convicted on drug-related charges and appealed against the severity of their sentences. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate weight to be given to various aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, including the planned or organised nature of the criminal activity, the offenders' breach of conditional liberty, their age, drug addiction, and the objective seriousness of their multiple offences. The appellants also argued that their sentences were disproportionately harsh in comparison to their co-offenders and did not adequately consider their remorse and rehabilitation prospects.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, considering the principles of sentencing and the relevant factors. In determining the appropriate penalties, the court recognised the planned and organised nature of the criminal activity as an aggravating factor, along with the breach of conditional liberty. However, the court also took into account the mitigating factors, such as the appellants' early guilty pleas, their expressions of remorse, and their potential for rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court compared the sentences of the appellants with those of their co-offenders and evaluated the objective seriousness of the offences committed.

After carefully considering all the relevant factors, the court concluded that the sentences imposed on Kamara and Kassem were appropriate and proportionate. The court acknowledged the aggravating factors but also recognised the mitigating factors and the need for individualised sentencing. The court found that the sentences reflected the objective seriousness of the multiple offences, while also taking into account the appellants' personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. The sentences of three years and two years, 10 months with non-parole periods of one year, ten months and one year, eight months, respectively, were affirmed.

The court's final orders were to maintain the sentences as determined by the lower court, with the non-parole periods as specified. The appellants' appeals against their sentences were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Kamara: An aggregate term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of one year, ten months;

Kassem: An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years, 10 months with a non-parole period of one year, eight months: at [48].

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.