R v Nabel Quzag
[2015] ACTSC 107
•17 April 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Nabel Quzag |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 107 |
Hearing Date: | 17 April 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 17 April 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Re-sentenced to 10 days’ imprisonment. |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Re-sentence – cultivate a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants believing that someone else intends to sell any of the plants or their products – aid and abet – breach of good behaviour order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45(1), 616(5) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Nabel Quzag (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms K Mackenzie (Crown) Mr J Maher (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 132 of 2013 |
Murrell CJ:
The offender is before the Court for re-sentence for the offence that between 6 September and 10 November 2012 in Canberra he aided and abetted the offence of cultivate a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants believing that someone else intends to sell any of the plants or their products, contrary to s 616(5)(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (by virtue of s 45(1)). The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000. The full circumstances of the offence are set out in my reasons for imposing the original sentence on 27 March 2014.
Objective Seriousness of Offence
The objective seriousness of the offender's criminal conduct is not high. However, as indicated by the maximum available penalty, any offence of this nature is serious. In this case, 98 plants were being cultivated. The offender's involvement was only occasional, but any involvement with a matter of this nature is serious.
Subjective Circumstances
The offender has committed no offences since December 2013. In his favour, he has not breached the law for a period of about 16 months. He is still a young man of 23 years of age. He is a hard worker, working six days a week full time as a foreman. He is also undertaking a carpentry apprenticeship. I am advised that he works Monday through Saturday and earns up to $1000 per week.
Original Sentence
When the offender was originally sentenced, I had regard to considerations of parity. His role was considered to be similar to that of Mr Yasin Al Nahib. In the context of having spent 28 days in custody, Mr Al Nahib was sentenced to an 18 month good behaviour order and to perform 208 hours of community service.
I imposed a sentence that required the offender to undertake 220 hours of community service work. After much struggle on the part of ACT Corrective Services, the offender completed 131 hours (leaving 89 hours outstanding). He was meant to complete the 220 hours within 12 months of 27 March 2014. He came nowhere close to meeting that deadline.
At [21] of my sentencing remarks I noted that his response to past supervision had been “unsatisfactory”. He had been resistant to complying with reasonable directions and, on occasion, had demonstrated an oppositional attitude. He impressed the Community Service Work Unit at ACT Corrective Services as "having limited regard for the direction of the court". That assessment has proved to be true over the past 12 months. The offender has refused to submit to the requirements of ACT Corrective Services in relation to undertaking community service work and to respect the order that the Court imposed.
Other Considerations in Re-Sentencing
In re-sentencing the offender I have regard to all the matters referred to in my earlier sentencing remarks; the maximum available penalty, the objective and subjective circumstances, and considerations of parity. I have regard to the intervening history of the offender's non-compliance with the community service order. Importantly, I note that he has undertaken 131 of the 220 hours ordered.
There is no point in imposing an order that requires him to accept any form of supervision, either by way of undertaking community service work or doing anything else. He is most unlikely to comply.
He is currently on a good behaviour order in relation to a perjury matter. That would not preclude the imposition of a further good behaviour order. However, a good behaviour order alone would not meet the sentencing purposes set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) with respect to an offence of this seriousness.
Counsel for the offender sensibly submitted that there were realistically two options; either a short sentence of full-time imprisonment, which he contended was less appropriate, or a significant fine.
I agree with the Crown's submission that, in this case, accountability looms large as a sentencing purpose. The offender obviously has a lot of difficulty in accepting accountability for the commission of the offence. A fine is inadequate to address the sentencing purposes of accountability, general deterrence and punishment. This is despite that fact that the offender has, in a sense, already been punished by having to complete 131 hours of community service.
Re-Sentence
In my view, the only appropriate sentence is a short sentence of full-time imprisonment. The offender is re-sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment from 17 April 2015 to 26 April 2015.
| I certify that the preceding twelve [12] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell. Associate: Date: 6 May 2015 |
0
0
2