R v Mohamed - [2010] NSWDC 322

CITATION: R v MOHAMED [2010] NSWDC 322

HEARING DATE(S): 19 November 2010
26 November 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 November 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for an overall term of 7 years with a 5 year non-parole period.
Make order under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Forms 1 - Overlapping offences - Dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime - Ongoing supply - Possess cannabis - Possess prohibited weapon - Possess for the purposes of supply - Conduct drug premises - Possess shortened firearm without authority - Possess unregistered firearm - Posses ammunition without licence or permit

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Firearms Act 1996
Weapons Prohibition Act
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989

CASES CITED: R v Tranh [2010] NSWCCA 183

PARTIES: The Crown
Ahmed Mohamed

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/049124; DC 2009/250074

COUNSEL: Mr R Webb - Offender

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Macquarie Lawyers Burwood - Offender

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Last Friday Ahmed Mohamed appeared for sentence on a large number of offences. He had earlier pleaded guilty to some of these offences in the Local Court and was committed for sentence to this Court. Another offence is a summary matter that was dealt with in this Court under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act and yet further offences appear on a number of Forms 1 attached to some of the offences committed to this Court for sentence.

2 These many offences represent significant criminality extending over a lengthy period from 3 June 2009 to 12 November 2009. The offences can conveniently be divided into two groups. Police became aware of suspicious activity involving the offender and his de facto partner, Ms Jodi Campbell. They obtained a search warrant and so, on 3 June 2009 they went to premises which the offender and Ms Campbell shared. The offender was alone there when the police arrived. In one of his pockets was a plastic resealable bag of cannabis with a net weight of one gram. That offence appears on a Form 1 attached to an offence of supplying 448.2 grams of cannabis, the circumstances of which I will later mention.

3 In the premises themselves police found a number of other items including more than $4,000 cash. That represents an offence of dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime, also attached to the supply cannabis offence I have just mentioned, and two taser gun devices located within a wardrobe. One of those was working but the other was not. The working weapon is the subject of a specific charge of possess prohibited weapon under s 7 of the Weapons Prohibition Act. It carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of three years. The other non-working taser is the subject of an offence on a Form 1 attached to that offence. Police also found,…

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 Mohamed

Details

AGLC: R v Mohamed [2010] NSWDC 322
Case: [2010] NSWDC 322
Decision Date: 26 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Mohamed, was charged and convicted of multiple offences relating to drug supply, possession of prohibited weapons, and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Mohamed faced sentencing after being found guilty of possessing cannabis with intent to supply, possessing a prohibited weapon, conducting a drug premises, possessing a shortened firearm without authority, possessing an unregistered firearm, and possessing ammunition without a licence or permit. The prosecution sought a substantial custodial sentence, arguing that Mohamed's criminal activities constituted a serious breach of public order and safety.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for Mohamed, considering the severity and nature of the overlapping offences. The court had to balance the need to deter Mohamed and others from engaging in similar criminal conduct with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether consecutive or concurrent sentencing was appropriate, given the overlapping nature of some offences, and whether the confiscation of proceeds of crime was warranted under the relevant legislation.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of Mohamed's criminal conduct, which involved the ongoing supply of drugs and the possession of dangerous weapons. The court recognised that Mohamed's actions posed a significant risk to public safety and that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court found that consecutive sentencing was appropriate due to the distinct and serious nature of each offence, despite their overlap. Additionally, the court made an order for the confiscation of proceeds of crime, recognising that Mohamed's wealth was likely derived from his illegal activities. The overall sentence imposed was seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence and the confiscation of proceeds of crime. Mohamed was sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of seven years, with a non-parole period of five years. The court also made an order under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, directing the confiscation of any property found to be derived from Mohamed's criminal activities. This decision underscores the court's commitment to addressing serious criminal conduct and ensuring that those who profit from illegal activities face appropriate consequences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment for an overall term of 7 years with a 5 year non-parole period.

Make order under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act

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.

CITATION:	R v MOHAMED [2010] NSWDC 322
HEARING DATE(S):	19 November 2010 26 November 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 November 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Sentenced to imprisonment for an overall term of 7 years with a 5 year non-parole period. Make order under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Forms 1 - Overlapping offences - Dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime - Ongoing supply - Possess cannabis - Possess prohibited weapon - Possess for the purposes of supply - Conduct drug premises - Possess shortened firearm without authority - Possess unregistered firearm - Posses ammunition without licence or permit
LEGISLATION CITED:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Firearms Act 1996 Weapons Prohibition Act Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989
CASES CITED:	R v Tranh [2010] NSWCCA 183
PARTIES:	The Crown Ahmed Mohamed
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2009/049124; DC 2009/250074
COUNSEL:	Mr R Webb - Offender
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Macquarie Lawyers Burwood - Offender