R v Kazzi - [2008] NSWCCA 77

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Kazzi [2008] NSWCCA 77
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 28 March 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at [1]; James J at [2]; Hoeben J at [69]

DECISION: Crown appeal allowed.
Respondent re-sentenced.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW — Crown appeal against sentence — drug offences — manifestly inadequate sentences

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Appeal Act
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

CASES CITED: Markarian v R (2005) 79 ALJR 1048
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Wall (2002) NSWCCA 42
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES: R v John Kazzi

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/5250

COUNSEL: LK Wells (Crown)
DG Dalton SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
S O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0624

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Williams DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 19 October 2007

2007/5250

MASON P
JAMES J
HOEBEN J
MONDAY 21 APRIL 2008

R v KAZZI, John

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with James J.

2 JAMES J: The Crown appealed pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act against sentences imposed on the respondent John Kazzi in the District Court on 19 October 2007 by his Honour Judge Williams for offences to which the respondent had pleaded guilty.

3 The offences for which the respondent was sentenced and the sentences which were imposed were as follows:-

Description of offence	Sentence
1	Supply prohibited drug — cocaine — 196 gms	Fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to date from 23 February 2006
2	Supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug — methylamphetamine 338 gms	Head sentence 5 years non-parole period 3 years to date from 23 February 2007
3	Supply prohibited drug — cocaine — 196 gms	Fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to date from 23 February 2006
4	Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug — cocaine — 2 kgs	Head sentence 6 years non-parole period 4 years to date from 23 February 2008
5	Supply large commercial quantity of prohibited drug — methylamphetamine 2.892 kgs	Head sentence 6 years non-parole period 4 years to date from 23 February 2008
6	Supply prohibited drug — cocaine — 139.7 gms	Fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to date from 23 February 2006
7	Supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug — cocaine — 990 gms	Head sentence 5 years non-parole period 3 years to date from 23 February 2007

4 The general effect of the sentences can be summarised as follows:-

For three offences of supplying a prohibited drug (offences 1, 3 and 6) the respondent was sentenced to fully concurrent fixed terms of imprisonment of 18 months commencing on 23 February 2006.

For two offences of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (offences 2…

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 Kazzi

Details

AGLC: R v Kazzi [2008] NSWCCA 77
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 77
Decision Date: 21 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kazzi, the appellant was convicted of multiple drug-related offences. The appellant, Kazzi, was convicted of drug trafficking, possession, and supply charges. The appeal before the court was initiated by the Crown, seeking to challenge the sentences imposed by the lower court as manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate, considering the gravity of the offences. The Crown argued that the sentences did not reflect the seriousness of the drug-related crimes committed by the appellant. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that the sentences were appropriate given the mitigating factors presented during the sentencing hearing.

The court examined the principles governing the imposition of sentences, particularly in relation to drug offences. It emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. The court noted that while the trial judge had considered various mitigating factors, the overall impact and seriousness of the offences warranted a harsher sentence. The Full Court found that the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly inadequate and proceeded to impose new sentences that more accurately reflected the seriousness of the offences. The court's decision underscores the need for appropriate sentencing in drug-related cases to effectively address public safety and deterrence concerns.

The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced. The new sentences imposed by the Full Court were more reflective of the gravity of the drug offences, ensuring that the punishment aligned with the legal principles of deterrence and proportionality.

Orders