R v Quzag - [2014] ACTSC 238

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Quzag
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 238
Hearing Date:	4 July 2014
DecisionDate:	4 July 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Conviction recorded. Eleven months’ imprisonment. Periodic detention order for three months. Remainder suspended on entering a good behaviour order for two years and six months.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – perjury – rehabilitation – young offender – parity – guilty plea
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 703 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7, 33
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Nabel Quzag (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Thomas (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 31 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

The offender adheres to a plea of guilty entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity in the Magistrates Court to the offence that on 1 November 2012 he committed perjury during proceedings in the Magistrates Court. This is an offence contrary to s 703(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). It carries a maximum available penalty of seven years' imprisonment, 700 penalty units or both.

The offence

On 31 July 2011 police saw Mr Negro driving a blue Subaru. They followed the vehicle and signalled for it to stop. When the vehicle stopped, Mr Alma, the front seat passenger, swapped with Mr Negro and assumed the driver's seat. The offender was sitting in the rear passenger’s seat. Ultimately, police charged Mr Negro with the offence of drive while disqualified.

The offender was called to give evidence before the Magistrates Court. He affirmed that he would tell the truth. In his evidence, he asserted that Mr Negro was not the driver of the vehicle and that Mr Alma was always in the driver's seat. Mr Alma gave evidence to the same effect. The Magistrate found that the charge against Mr Negro was established beyond reasonable doubt and that Mr Alma and the offender had lied when they said that Mr Negro was not the driver.

In October 2013 Mr Alma provided a statement to police in which he made full admissions about Mr Negro being the driver and about having lied in Court. He agreed to assist in relation to Mr Negro.

Subjective circumstances

I accept that Mr Quzag’s motive for lying in the Magistrates Court was misguided loyalty to family and friends. Such a motive is common in offences of this nature. It makes the offence less serious than if the motive had been direct personal gain, but it remains a serious matter.

Apart from the following matter, the offender’s prior criminal history involves a theft matter which resulted in a fine, some driving matters and some other minor matters.

The offender appeared before me in relation to another matter in March this year, when I sentenced him for aiding and abetting the commission of the offence of cultivating a traffickable quantity of cannabis for the purpose of selling it. That offence was committed between…

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 Quzag

Details

AGLC: R v Quzag [2014] ACTSC 238
Case: [2014] ACTSC 238
Decision Date: 4 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Quzag, appealed against his conviction and sentence for perjury. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. Quzag was charged with two counts of perjury during a criminal trial. He pleaded guilty to one count and the other was withdrawn by the prosecution. The Crown sought a custodial sentence, while Quzag’s legal representative argued for a non-custodial sentence. The Crown submitted that Quzag’s offending warranted a custodial sentence. They submitted that the offending was serious, and Quzag had shown no remorse for his actions. The Crown submitted that Quzag’s offending had the potential to undermine the administration of justice and cause miscarriages of justice. The defence submitted that Quzag had shown remorse and was willing to make amends for his actions. The defence submitted that Quzag had a strong support network and was willing to participate in rehabilitation programs. The defence submitted that Quzag was a young offender and should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The court considered the principles of sentencing for perjury, the circumstances of the offence, and the characteristics of the offender. The court noted that perjury was a serious offence that undermined the administration of justice. The court noted that Quzag’s offending had the potential to cause miscarriages of justice and undermine public confidence in the legal system. The court noted that Quzag had shown remorse and was willing to make amends for his actions. The court noted that Quzag was a young offender with a strong support network and was willing to participate in rehabilitation programs. The court considered the principles of parity and rehabilitation in sentencing Quzag. The court noted that Quzag’s offending was serious but not at the highest level of culpability. The court noted that Quzag had pleaded guilty and had shown remorse for his actions. The court noted that Quzag was a young offender with a strong support network and was willing to participate in rehabilitation programs. The court considered the totality of the circumstances and sentenced Quzag to eleven months’ imprisonment, with three months to be served in periodic detention and the remainder suspended on entering a good behaviour order for two years and six months. The conviction was recorded, and the sentence was ordered to be served accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Conviction recorded. Eleven months’ imprisonment. Periodic detention order for three months. Remainder suspended on entering a good behaviour order for two years and six 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.