(i) Allow the Crown appeal; (ii) Quash the sentences imposed on the Respondent by Graham ADCJ on 15 June 2009 and in lieu thereof sentence the Respondent as follows; (iii) In respect of the charge of possessing more than three firearms being two prohibited pistols and two prohibited firearms and which the Respondent was unauthorised by licence or permit to possess, sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months commencing on 15 January 2008 and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months; (iv) In respect of the charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of methyl-amphetamine, sentence the Respondent to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months commencing on 15 January 2009 and a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months; and (v) Record as the date upon which it appears to the Court as the date upon which the Respondent shall become eligible for parole, 15 July 2015.
PARTIES:
Regina Jihad MAHMUD
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2009/1953
COUNSEL:
Mr F Veltro (Crown) Mr GD Wendler (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Mr S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) Mr S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2009/1953
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Graham ADCJ
- 33 -
2009/1953
GILES JA HULME J LATHAM J
Friday, 24 September 2010
R V Jihad MAHMUD
Judgment
1 GILES JA: I agree with RS Hulme J.
On 15 June 2009 the Respondent to this Crown appeal was sentenced by Graham ADCJ in respect of two charges. The charges and the sentences imposed were:-
(i) Supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – imprisonment for 6 years and 6 months including a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, both such periods commencing on 15 January 2009.
(ii) Possessing more than 3 firearms, being 2 prohibited pistols and 2 prohibited firearms, which the Respondent was unauthorised by license or permit to possess – imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months including a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, both such periods commencing on 15 January 2008.
3 The effective sentence was thus imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months including a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.
4 Pursuant to s33(3)(a) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985, the first offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 5000 penalty units. Pursuant to s51D(2) of the Firearms Act 1996, the maximum penalty prescribed for the second offence is 20 years imprisonment. By reason of s54A et seq. of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, standard non-parole periods of 15 years and 10 years imprisonment respectively are prescribed for these offences.
5 In sentencing the…
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 Mahmud
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
Case
[2010] NSWCCA 219
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this appeal, the Court was asked to determine the adequacy of the sentences imposed on Jihad Mahmud for the offences of possessing more than three firearms and supplying a large commercial quantity of methyl-amphetamine. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, pointing to various errors in the sentencing judge's reasoning and the application of the law. The Court identified several issues, including whether the sentencing judge properly considered the evidence, whether the sentences adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offences, and whether the sentences were sufficiently severe to meet the objectives of deterrence and retribution. The Court found that the sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate, primarily due to the lenient treatment of the firearms offence and the insufficiently severe sentence for the drug supply offence. Consequently, the Court allowed the Crown appeal, quashed the original sentences, and imposed new sentences, including a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months for the firearms offence and 6 years and 6 months for the drug supply offence. The sentences were partly concurrent, resulting in an effective sentence of 7 years and 6 months with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months.