R v Naghdi - [2021] NSWDC 635

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Naghdi [2021] NSWDC 635
Hearing dates: 8 October 2021; 14 October 2021
Date of orders: 14 October 2021
Decision date: 14 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of three years and ten months with a non-parole period of 18 months: at [67].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Hardship— Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985

Cases Cited:
Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157
Kelly v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 44
R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 5
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Hopley [2008] NSWCCA 105
R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 534
Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Mandana Naghdi (Offender)
Representation:
Mr D Robinson (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr I Wallach (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/347794

Judgment

Mandana Naghdi, now aged 29, has pleaded guilty to one count of supply prohibited drug in excess of the commercial quantity contrary s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 10 years. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are both important yardsticks in the sentencing process, which must take into account the purposes of sentencing outlined s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The plea of guilty was entered in circumstances justifying a 25% discount on any term of imprisonment.
The offender was in custody for 44 days, following her arrest on 5 November 2019, before being granted bail. Any term of imprisonment imposed should take that period into account.
The facts surrounding the offending are, for the most part, common to those of a number of people who have already been sentenced in relation to this drug supply operation.
On 18 June this year I imposed sentences as follows (R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 519) :

Mohammed Chami – A term of imprisonment of seven years and ten months with a non-parole period of four years and eight months

Ahmed Halloum – A term of imprisonment of eight years and three months with a non-parole period of five years

Nouril Hassoun – A term of imprisonment of seven years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and six

On 5 October 2021, I sentenced Isabella Wu to a term imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of two years and one month commencing on the date of her arrest, on 5 November 2019 (R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 534).
In…

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 Naghdi

Details

AGLC: R v Naghdi [2021] NSWDC 635
Case: [2021] NSWDC 635
Decision Date: 14 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Naghdi, was convicted of various charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and affray. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant, considering the mitigating factors and the nature of the offences committed. The court had to weigh the appellant's plea of guilty, his rehabilitation efforts, and the degree of remorse displayed against the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence.

The court acknowledged the appellant's guilty plea and the significant rehabilitation achieved, including participation in a rehabilitation program and maintaining employment. However, it also considered the objective seriousness of the offences, which involved violence and public disturbance, and the need to uphold the deterrence principle. The court found that the maximum penalty for the most serious offence was ten years imprisonment, and the moral culpability was high due to the premeditated nature of the crimes. Ultimately, the court determined that a term of imprisonment of three years and ten months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 18 months, reflecting both the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors presented.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors, including the co-offenders' roles, the need for specific and general deterrence, and the purposes of sentencing. The sentence imposed aimed to balance the appellant's rehabilitation and remorse with the need to protect the community and uphold the rule of law. The court concluded that the sentence met the objectives of sentencing and adequately reflected the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of three years and ten months with a non-parole period of 18 months: at [67].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Naghdi [2021] NSWDC 635
Hearing dates:	8 October 2021; 14 October 2021
Date of orders:	14 October 2021
Decision date:	14 October 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of three years and ten months with a non-parole period of 18 months: at [67].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Hardship— Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985
Cases Cited:	Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157 Kelly v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 44 R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 5 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Hopley [2008] NSWCCA 105 R v Wu [2021] NSWDC 534 Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mandana Naghdi (Offender)
Representation:	Mr D Robinson (Crown Prosecutor) Mr I Wallach (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/347794