R v Khatib

[2016] NSWDC 299

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Khatib [2016] NSWDC 299
Hearing dates:	24 March 2016
Date of orders:	24 March 2016
Decision date:	24 March 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Adjourned under s11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug supply
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Milad Khatib
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Hallani & Associates – The offender
File Number(s):	2014/314703

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Milad Khatib was detected by police supplying drugs to another male, and after he was arrested for that matter, things got worse for him. He was found to be in possession of 36 white tablets which presumably were MDMA. His mobile phone was searched which revealed text messages relating to the supply of drugs to people known as Dolin Jay Arq, and Younes Milo.

2. It is clear that the offender was an enthusiastic supplier of drugs. He says for various reasons he was subsidising his own drug use. He had debts and he needed to pay his rent amongst other things. Mr Khatib was prepared to supply drugs to anyone who wanted them really so that he could make money. Since his arrest, he says, in a letter to me tendered today that he has completely changed. The rehabilitation of the offender is something upon which Mr Hallani who appears for him today relies in an effort to suggest that his client should not be sentenced to custody full-time.

3. It is clear that the focus of this sentencing exercise is on the question as to whether exceptional circumstances have been shown such as to justify a sentence of other than full-time custody. The offender was clearly trafficking to a substantial degree.

4. There are two difficulties with Mr Hallani’s submission as to the extent of the offender’s rehabilitation. The first is that Mr Hallani relies on the fact that the offender now has a job. Unfortunately that is a job which is at risk once he is convicted of drug supply. He works at Sydney Airport and his air side clearance is likely to be affected by a conviction for drug supply. Thus the chances of him continuing in his present employment are uncertain, if not it being the case that he will likely lose his job. What will happen then as far as Mr Khatib’s rehabilitation is concerned. Will he go back to using drugs? Who knows? I certainly do not.

5. The second aspect of rehabilitation which Mr Hallani relies on concerns the fact that the offender claims he has not used drugs since his arrest. Mr Hallani says that as part of his job he has been drug tested on three occasions but evidence of those tests has not been put before me, nor is there any other evidence about urinalysis or the like which would satisfy me that I should accept the statement not made on oath by the offender that he is not using drugs.

6. Accordingly I proposed to Mr Hallani, and the Crown did not oppose this, that the matter should be adjourned under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to enable Mr Khatib to demonstrate that his rehabilitation is such that, together with a number of other factors, exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence of other than full-time custody have been demonstrated. During the period of the adjournment I expect the following to happen. Mr Khatib will forthwith disclose his conviction for drug supply to his employer and to those who are responsible for issuing his ASIC card.

7. Secondly the offender is to be supervised by the Probation and Parole Service during the period of the remand. Thirdly the offender is to, at his own expense, or under the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service regular urinalysis in order to demonstrate the truth or otherwise of Mr Khatib’s claim that he no longer uses drugs. Those three matters are conditions of the s 11 remand. It may be that strictly speaking the first of those conditions is not a condition of bail, and so it may well be that it is not a proper condition for remand under s 11. However, even if that is the case, I am sure that Mr Hallani will understand and explain to his client that it is in his interests to demonstrate to me that his rehabilitation will continue even after losing his present employment, if that is the result of the disclosure I suggest should be made. I will have it specifically recorded that I have convicted the offender.

8. Now let us look towards the end of the year to give your client a decent chance to demonstrate something to me Mr Hallani.

9. DISCUSSION RE FUTURE DATE

10. ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2016

**********

Decision last updated: 14 November 2016