R v Mohanad Quzag - [2015] ACTSC 52

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mohanad Quzag
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 52
Hearing Date(s):	12 February 2015
DecisionDate:	12 February 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment: six months’ full time imprisonment; periodic detention order for eight months; remainder suspended on entering into a good behaviour order for 14 months.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – cultivate trafficable quantity of cannabis plants – late guilty plea after plea reversals – co-offenders – comparable cases – sentencing purposes – general deterrence – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 616(5) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35
Cases Cited:	R v Li; R v Jin [2014] ACTSC 304 R v Luoc Quang Pham (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 31 January 2014) R v Mayberry (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 5 September 2013) R v Moustafa Negro; R v Nabel Quzag (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 27 March 2014 R v Quan; R v Zhang [2014] ACTSC 385
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mohanad Quzag (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr G Mansfield (Crown) Ms N Rajapakse (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan & Co Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 131 of 2013

MURRELL CJ:

The offence

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, contrary to s 616(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), between 10 September and 10 November 2012, he cultivated a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants with the intention of selling any of them, or believing that someone else intended to sell any of them. The offence carries a maximum available penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. A trafficable quantity is between 10 and 100 plants.

The offender has spent no time in custody.

The matter has a tortuous history. The offender was committed for trial on 22 August 2013 and the matter was listed for trial. The offender pleaded guilty. Later, he sought leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, which was granted, and the first trial date was vacated. The matter was listed for trial a second time. That trial was also vacated. A third trial was listed to commence on 27 November 2014, but the third trial date was vacated when the offender pleaded guilty on the day before the trial.

In these circumstances, the offender is entitled to very little discount under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). There was little utilitarian value to his plea and, generally, the other s 35 considerations do not tell in his favour.

Facts

Over the two-month period the subject of the charge, the offender attended unoccupied residential premises in Macgregor that were owned by his girlfriend’s parents. He went for the purpose of tending a cannabis crop that was being grown at the premises by a sophisticated hydroponic arrangement.

Police surveillance revealed that the offender attended the premises on an…

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 Mohanad Quzag

Details

AGLC: R v Mohanad Quzag [2015] ACTSC 52
Case: [2015] ACTSC 52
Decision Date: 12 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mohanad Quzag, the defendant was charged with cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant initially pleaded guilty to the charge, however, subsequently reversed his plea and pleaded not guilty. Following a trial, the defendant again pleaded guilty to the charge. The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his late guilty plea, his co-offenders, and the principles of general deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court considered the relevant sentencing principles and compared the present case to similar cases. The court noted that the defendant had a prior criminal record and had reversed his plea, which indicated a lack of remorse. However, the court also considered the defendant's age, his limited role in the offending, and the possibility of rehabilitation. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to achieve the purposes of general deterrence and to promote the rehabilitation of the defendant. However, the court also considered the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and his willingness to enter into a good behaviour order.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to 28 months’ imprisonment, with six months to be served as full-time imprisonment and the remainder to be served through a periodic detention order and a good behaviour order. The court ordered that the defendant enter into a good behaviour order for a period of 14 months. This decision provides guidance for sentencing courts when considering the appropriate sentence for an offender who cultivates a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants and has a prior criminal record. The court’s consideration of the principles of general deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation, will be important factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment: six months’ full time imprisonment; periodic detention order for eight months; remainder suspended on entering into a good behaviour order for 14 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.