R v Lahood - [2019] NSWDC 646

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lahood [2019] NSWDC 646
Hearing dates: 5 August 2019
Decision date: 07 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence 7 years imprisonment, non-parole period 4 years 6 months

Catchwords: CRIME – Sentence – dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – possess equipment to make identification documents – possess identification information - joint criminal enterprise – key member of criminal group – numerous stolen identities – created bank accounts, credit card accounts and personal loans in other people’s names – on line applications over 2 year period – over $2 million in total - sophisticated operation – stole mail from mail boxes to create identities – possessed computer program capable of generating false documents – passports, bills, driver’s licences – measuring totality of criminality – overlapping offences – previous offending with similar offences – support drug habit and lifestyle – drugs helped with pain relief and anxiety – successful completion of Drug Court program – current offending commenced 3 months after completion of program – possible “Conduct Disorder” or ADHD – aggravating factor – on conditional liberty – pleas of guilty – expressions of remorse – special circumstances – medium to high risk of re-offending.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900; s 93T; s 192E(1)(b); s 192J; s 192K;
s 192L; s 193B(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; s.9; s 53A
Cases Cited: Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 616,
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481
R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Joseph Lahood (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Ainsworth (offender)
Solicitors:
Ms Sawagid DPP NSW (Crown)
Ms Mate (offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00279384
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Joseph Lahood appears today for sentence in relation to a number of charges for which he was committed for sentence from the Local Court. There is no dispute that he is entitled, in the context of the timing of the plea of guilty and the circumstances of the committal for sentence, to receive in respect of every sentence imposed upon him a discount of 25% to represent the utilitarian benefit of the pleas of guilty.
With regard to the specific charges, I do not propose to re‑read the particulars. I spent quite a considerable period of time clarifying the particulars and ensuring that Mr Lahood and his co‑accused Mr Ryan fully understood the character of the charges brought against them. But I need to refer to particular sequence numbers and the general particulars about those offences in order to reflect the comments I make about the totality of the criminality and the character of the offending.
By reference to the sequence numbers derived from the relevant “H” numbers, sequence 3, is an offence of possessing equipment to make identification documents.…

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 Lahood

Details

AGLC: R v Lahood [2019] NSWDC 646
Case: [2019] NSWDC 646
Decision Date: 07 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lahood involved the appellant who was convicted of multiple counts of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception. The appellant was found in possession of equipment to create identification documents and had also possessed identification information. He was part of a joint criminal enterprise and a key member of a criminal group responsible for creating numerous stolen identities. Over a two-year period, the appellant applied for bank accounts, credit card accounts, and personal loans using these stolen identities, resulting in losses exceeding $2 million. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for these serious and sophisticated criminal activities, which involved stealing mail from mailboxes to create the identities, using a computer program capable of generating false documents such as passports, bills, and driver's licences.

The legal issues the court considered included the need to measure the totality of the criminality, which involved overlapping offences and the appellant's previous offending with similar offences. The court also had to consider the circumstances surrounding the offending, including that the appellant engaged in these activities to support a drug habit and lifestyle. The appellant had successfully completed a Drug Court program, but his current offending commenced only three months after the completion of this program. Additionally, the court examined the possibility of "Conduct Disorder" or ADHD as an aggravating factor, the appellant's status on conditional liberty, and his expressions of remorse and special circumstances. The court had to weigh these factors against the medium to high risk of re-offending.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while the appellant had shown some remorse and completed a drug rehabilitation program, the severity and sophistication of the offending warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court also considered the appellant's previous offending history, the potential for rehabilitation, and the need to protect the community from further offending. Ultimately, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, was appropriate. The sentence reflected the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct, the need for deterrence, and the risk of re-offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence 7 years imprisonment, non-parole period 4 years 6 months

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 Lahood [2019] NSWDC 646
Hearing dates:	5 August 2019
Decision date:	07 August 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence 7 years imprisonment, non-parole period 4 years 6 months
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – possess equipment to make identification documents – possess identification information - joint criminal enterprise – key member of criminal group – numerous stolen identities – created bank accounts, credit card accounts and personal loans in other people’s names – on line applications over 2 year period – over $2 million in total - sophisticated operation – stole mail from mail boxes to create identities – possessed computer program capable of generating false documents – passports, bills, driver’s licences – measuring totality of criminality – overlapping offences – previous offending with similar offences – support drug habit and lifestyle – drugs helped with pain relief and anxiety – successful completion of Drug Court program – current offending commenced 3 months after completion of program – possible “Conduct Disorder” or ADHD – aggravating factor – on conditional liberty – pleas of guilty – expressions of remorse – special circumstances – medium to high risk of re-offending.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900; s 93T; s 192E(1)(b); s 192J; s 192K; s 192L; s 193B(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; s.9; s 53A
Cases Cited:	Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 616, Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610 R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481 R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Joseph Lahood (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Ainsworth (offender) Solicitors: Ms Sawagid DPP NSW (Crown) Ms Mate (offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00279384
Publication restriction:	No