R v Nehme; R v Suleski - [2022] NSWDC 693

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nehme; R v Suleski [2022] NSWDC 693
Hearing dates: 4 October 2022, 6 October 2022
Date of orders: 6 October 2022
Decision date: 06 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Nehme: Aggregate sentence of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 months. See orders [85].
Suleski: Aggregate sentence of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years. See orders [88].

Catchwords:
CRIME – Supply prohibited drug over large commercial quantity – rolled up drug quantities- Methylamphetamine and MDMA and Cocaine
CRIME – forfeiture orders
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – rolled up drug quantities - Forms 1 - totality - early guilty pleas - Nehme non-exculpatory duress – Suleski deprived background - parity - special circumstances- starting dates - structure of sentences – forfeiture orders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25
Lindsay v R [2012] NSWCCA 124
R v Ceissman [2004] NSWCCA 466
R v Z [2005] 2 AC 167
Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215

Category: Sentence
Parties: Salim Sam Nehme (the offender)
Simon Dimitrija Suleski (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Lange (for Nehme)
Mr T Skinner (for Suleski)
Mr M Rollestone (for Director of Public Prosecutions NSW)
Solicitors:
Sydney Criminal Defence Lawyers (for Nehme)
Abbas Jacobs Lawyers (for Suleski)
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW

File Number(s): 2020/00356729 - R v Salim Sam Nehme
2020/00356731 - R v Simon Dimitrija Suleski

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

Two young men for sentence today; Simon Dimitrija Suleski, and Salim Sam Nehme. Both entered pleas of guilty to three counts of supplying a large commercial quantity of prohibited drugs: s 25(2), Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offences carry a maximum penalties of life imprisonment. Parliament has said for an offence that falls, taking into account only objective features, in the middle of the range, there is a standard non-parole period of 15 years.
Nehme pleaded guilty to three s 25(2) offences involving the supply of a large quantity of a prohibited drug, 1108 grams of cocaine, 836 grams of methylamphetamine, and 1110 grams of MDMA.
Suleski pleaded guilty to the same offences, involving the supply of 1203 grams of cocaine, supply of 881 grams of methylamphetamine, and 1110 grams of MDMA.
The difference in drug quantities is accounted for by drugs found in possession of an offender on arrest.
Content has to be given to any standard non-parole period fixed by Parliament. And the guidance of both maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods has to be accepted. But every offence is individual, and every person for sentence is sentenced as an individual. I must have regard to many purposes of sentencing, some of which are contradictory. I must have regard to the message sent by that maximum penalty, and the standard non-parole period. Each of 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Nehme; R v Suleski and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWDC 693
Decision Date: 06 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Nehme and Suleski, were convicted of drug supply offences involving significant quantities of methylamphetamine, MDMA, and cocaine. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute was over the appropriate sentences for the defendants, given the substantial quantities of drugs involved and the mitigating factors presented.

The court needed to determine the appropriate sentencing principles for each defendant, considering the large commercial quantities of drugs supplied, their respective roles in the crime, and any mitigating factors. The court had to balance the need for deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the defendants' backgrounds, their respective contributions to the crime, and the impact of their early guilty pleas. Nehme's claim of non-exculpatory duress was also examined, while Suleski's deprived background was considered in the sentencing process.

The court concluded that the appropriate aggregate sentence for Nehme was five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and three months. For Suleski, the court determined an aggregate sentence of five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years. The court made orders for forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime, reflecting the significant financial gains from the drug supply activities.

Orders

Orders of the court

Nehme: Aggregate sentence of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 months. See orders [85].

Suleski: Aggregate sentence of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years. See orders [88].

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 Nehme; R v Suleski [2022] NSWDC 693
Hearing dates:	4 October 2022, 6 October 2022
Date of orders:	6 October 2022
Decision date:	06 October 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Nehme: Aggregate sentence of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 months. See orders [85]. Suleski: Aggregate sentence of 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years. See orders [88].
Catchwords:	CRIME – Supply prohibited drug over large commercial quantity – rolled up drug quantities- Methylamphetamine and MDMA and Cocaine CRIME – forfeiture orders SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – rolled up drug quantities - Forms 1 - totality - early guilty pleas - Nehme non-exculpatory duress – Suleski deprived background - parity - special circumstances- starting dates - structure of sentences – forfeiture orders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25 Lindsay v R [2012] NSWCCA 124 R v Ceissman [2004] NSWCCA 466 R v Z [2005] 2 AC 167 Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Salim Sam Nehme (the offender) Simon Dimitrija Suleski (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Lange (for Nehme) Mr T Skinner (for Suleski) Mr M Rollestone (for Director of Public Prosecutions NSW) Solicitors: Sydney Criminal Defence Lawyers (for Nehme) Abbas Jacobs Lawyers (for Suleski) Director of Public Prosecutions NSW
File Number(s):	2020/00356729 - R v Salim Sam Nehme 2020/00356731 - R v Simon Dimitrija Suleski