Legal Research
Cases
R v Maalla

R v Maalla

Case [2024] NSWDC 4 8 February 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Maalla [2024] NSWDC 4
Hearing dates: 23 January 2024
Decision date: 08 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
See page [20]

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – Knowingly take part in supply of prohibited drugs – Butanediol – Large commercial quantity – Indictable quantity – Mental health – Drug addiction – moral culpability – low level retailer of drugs

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, s 14(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 25D(2)(a), 21A(3)(i), 7(1), 47, 66, 21A2(d).
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985), ss 25(1), 25(2)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998), s 34(1) (Cl 1(6)

Cases Cited:
AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 160
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4]
Elchikh v R [2016] NSWCCA 225
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47
Kim v R [2019] NSWCCA 165 at [65]
Moilerp v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209
Oritz v R [2014] NSWCCA 260
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
R v Denyer [1995] 1 VR 186
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Veen v R (No 2)(1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (ODPP)
Taleb Maalla
Representation:
Counsel:
L Hawke (Crown)
D Pace (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
U Amin - Olympus Law (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/347198
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: The Offender, who is currently 32 years old and was 31 years old at the time of offending, has pleaded guilty to and is being sentenced in respect to the following matters.

SEQUENCE	PARTICULARS	MAX PENALTY
Sequence 1 – Knowingly take part in supply (4.961kg of 1,4-Butanediol)	S25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985	Life imprisonment (SNPP 15 years)
Sequence 4 – Possess Prohibited Drug (16.09g of methylamphetamine) To be dealt with under s 166	S10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985	2 years imprisonment and/or 20 penalty units (No SNPP)
Sequence 14 – knowingly take part in supply (1,4-Butanediol)	S25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking act 1985	15 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units (No SNPP)

In addition to the pleas of guilty entered, the Offender also asks the Court to take into account on sequence 1 the following matters on a Form 1.

SEQUENCE	PARTICULARS	MAX PENALTY
Attached to Sequence 1
Sequence 5 - Deemed Supply of 438.8g of 1,4-Butanediol	s25(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985	15 years imprisonment (no SNPP)
Sequence 7 – Possess prohibited weapon in contravention of weapons prohibition order	S34(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998	10 years imprisonment (No SNPP)
Sequence 10 – Possess prohibited drug (12g cannabis)	S10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985	2 years imprisonment (No SNPP)
Sequence 13 – Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime ($7,500)	S193C(2) Crimes Act 1900	3 years imprisonment (No SNPP)

Early plea of…

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 Maalla

Details

AGLC: R v Maalla [2024] NSWDC 4
Case: [2024] NSWDC 4
Decision Date: 08 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Maalla, the respondent pleaded guilty to being knowingly involved in the supply of butanediol in a commercial quantity, an act which is prohibited under Australian law. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Maalla, who admitted to participating in the supply of a significant amount of butanediol, a substance which is regulated due to its potential for misuse.

The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of the respondent's moral culpability and the appropriate sentence to be imposed, given the indictable nature of the offence and the mitigating factors presented, including Maalla's mental health issues and history of drug addiction. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offence, which involved a large commercial quantity of a prohibited substance, with the personal circumstances of the respondent.

The Supreme Court found that while the offence was serious, the respondent's mental health issues and drug addiction were significant mitigating factors that reduced his moral culpability. The court acknowledged the respondent's history of drug use and the impact of his mental health condition on his offending behaviour. However, the court also emphasised the substantial quantity of butanediol involved in the supply, which indicated a significant involvement in the drug trade. After considering all the relevant factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would reflect both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances.

The court imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment followed by a supervision order, taking into account the need for rehabilitation and the protection of the community. The specific details of the sentence are outlined on page [20] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See page [20]

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Maalla [2024] NSWDC 4

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
Citation 1 (Para 78)

…Second, his mental health conditions. These are relevant as explained in cases such as Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73 at [55]–[57]. This is so regardless of a direct link between those issues and the offending.…
Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209
Citation 2 (Para 43)

…be taken into account with a view, if appropriate, to increasing the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate for the primary offence: Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209 at [58]–[64]. Any increase in sentence need not necessarily be significant: Oritz v R [2014] NSWCCA 260. Those matters include: deemed supply; posses…
Kim v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 165
Citation 3 (Para 74)

…Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [70]; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [58]; BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4]; Kim v R [2019] NSWCCA 165 at [65]. This is because it informs the extent to which a person deserves to be punished, in the sense of retribution and denunciation.…
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Citation 4 (Para 32)

…errence is very important in drug supply cases so that a consistent message from sentencing judges to the general community is necessary: Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 at [109]. The protection of the community will usually be of significance, because of the negative social impact of drug use, particularly as an unde…
Elchiekh v R [2016] NSWCCA 225
Citation 5 (Para 35)

…emphasised that whilst the quantity of drugs involved is an important consideration, it is by no means the only or most important factor: Elchikh v R [2016] NSWCCA 225 at [42].…
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29
Citation 6 (Para 74)

…culpability is an important factor that bears on the appropriate sentence; see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11 at [200] and [250]; Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [70]; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [58]; BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4]; Kim v R [2019] NSWCCA 165 at [65].…
Ortiz v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 260
Citation 7 (Para 43)

…opriate for the primary offence: Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209 at [58]–[64]. Any increase in sentence need not necessarily be significant: Oritz v R [2014] NSWCCA 260. Those matters include: deemed supply; possess weapon, possess prohibited drug, and proceeds of crime.…
AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 160
Citation 8 (Para 34)

…must consider “the quality and purity of the drugs involved, the role of the Offender and the degree of planning” in each particular case: AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 160 at [54].…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 9 (Para 74)

…n the appropriate sentence; see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11 at [200] and [250]; Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [70]; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [58]; BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4]; Kim v R [2019] NSWCCA 165 at [65]. This is because it informs the extent to which a…
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Citation 10 (Para 74)

…Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11 at [200] and [250]; Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [70]; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [58]; BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4]; Kim v R [2019] NSWCCA 165 at [65]. This is because it informs the extent to which a person deserves to be punished, in…
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Citation 11 (Para 30)

…bjective is to impose a sentence that is ‘just and appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances of the offence and the Offender’ ( R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [121]).…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11
Citation 12 (Para 74)

…My assessment of the Offender’s moral culpability is an important factor that bears on the appropriate sentence; see R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11 at [200] and [250]; Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [70]; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [58]; BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 13 (Para 29)

…There is considerable overlap and often real tension between the various competing purposes of sentencing ( Veen v R (No 2)(1988) 164 CLR 465) and none can be considered in isolation. They will often point in different directions. Each purpose must be considered and balanced, without giving undue weight to any one pu…
R v Wells [1995] VSC 35
Citation 14 (Para 66)

…Any sentence I impose should not leave the Offender devoid of an incentive to rehabilitate himself: R v Denyer [1995] 1 VR 186 at [193].…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) 21A(3)(i), 21A2(d), 25D(2)(a), 47, 66, 7...
7 mentions (from Para 4)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) 14(1)
2 mentions (from Para 7)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 27)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Maalla [2024] NSWDC 4
Hearing dates:	23 January 2024
Decision date:	08 February 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	See page [20]
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – Knowingly take part in supply of prohibited drugs – Butanediol – Large commercial quantity – Indictable quantity – Mental health – Drug addiction – moral culpability – low level retailer of drugs
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, s 14(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 25D(2)(a), 21A(3)(i), 7(1), 47, 66, 21A2(d). Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985), ss 25(1), 25(2) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998), s 34(1) (Cl 1(6)
Cases Cited:	AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 160 BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379 at [4] Elchikh v R [2016] NSWCCA 225 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 Kim v R [2019] NSWCCA 165 at [65] Moilerp v R [2021] NSWCCA 73 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Nguyen v R [2019] NSWCCA 209 Oritz v R [2014] NSWCCA 260 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 R v Denyer [1995] 1 VR 186 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 11 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 Veen v R (No 2)(1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (ODPP) Taleb Maalla
Representation:	Counsel: L Hawke (Crown) D Pace (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) U Amin - Olympus Law (Offender)
File Number(s):	2022/347198
Publication restriction:	None