R v Razzak

[2015] NSWDC 366

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Razzak [2015] NSWDC 366
Hearing dates:	9 July 2015
Date of orders:	09 July 2015
Decision date:	09 July 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence to an effective overall sentence consisting a non-parole period of 21 months with a head sentence of 29 months. – Back up charges dismissed – Confiscation order made by consent
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug supply – Methylamphetamine – Cannabis – Property being suspected to being the proceeds of crime – paraphernalia of drug dealing,
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Hazsam Abdel Razzak
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Breton Legal - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/253480

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Up until the age of about 17 Hazsam Abdel Razzak was on a path of which every parent would be proud. He had completed high school, he was going to TAFE he was working, and he had the intention of taking up a trade in plumbing. However things began to fall apart when he tried marijuana, initially as a means of relieving stress, at about the age of 17. As is often the case, starting out by using one drug led soon to the use of another drug, in this case Ice, at about 21. Gradually as his drug use increased his ability to study and work decreased until he gave up TAFE and he gave up work.

2. It was in these circumstances that he began supplying drugs. He faces sentence today for two offences for supplying methylamphetamine relating to two different quantities found at different addresses. I am also to sentence him for an offence of dealing with property being suspected to be proceeds of crime relating to some of the money found.

3. The matters came to the attention of police when they executed a search warrant at some premises in Beverley Hills. The offender did not live there but visited there quite a bit. Police forced entry. As they did so another person who was in the house, Michael Shelton, threw something out a window. This later proved to contain some drugs.

4. When police went into the lounge room they saw the offender effectively sitting in the middle of a number of small clear, resealable bags containing a white substance. The offender admitted today that it was he who had put the drugs, because that is what the white substance turned out to be, in those bags.

5. Other paraphernalia of a drug dealer were found, five separate mobile phones and digital scales amongst them. Police then went to the backyard where Mr Shelton had thrown an object there, they found a small safe-like device using a key which the offender had had in his possession, the safe was opened and more small resealable bags containing drugs were found.

6. There were a number of bags of cannabis as well as the bags with the methylamphetamine. The total amount of methylamphetamine located in both the backyard and the lounge room is 9.83 grams with a purity of about 75%. There was 38.1 grams of cannabis located there as well.

7. One of the mobile phones contained on it text messages relating to drug supplies on 12 August, 14 August and 16 August. Clearly the offender had those drugs in his possession for the purposes of supplying them, the only qualification to that being that he may well have used some of them himself.

8. Police then went to where Mr Razzak usually lived. His mother was at home together with two of the offender’s brothers. Police went to the offender’s bedroom and located more drugs, both methylamphetamine and cannabis, numerous empty resealable bags, some cash and a drug ledger. A further sum of cash was found in another safe-like device within the bedroom. The total quantity of methylamphetamine seized from those premises was 15.06 grams, again with an approximate purity of 75% and the cannabis seized amounted to 11.4 grams.

9. The offender participated in electronically recorded interview with police in which he denied committing any offences at all. He soon changed his mind because he pleaded guilty at the Local Court to the supply drug matters which I have already mentioned. In recognition of the utilitarian value of his pleas of guilty I will impose a sentence upon the offender which is 25% less than it would otherwise have been.

10. When I sentence him for one of the offences of supplying prohibited drug, that relating to the 15.06 grams found in his bedroom, he asks that I take into account two Form 1 matters, they relating to possession of the cannabis found in each of the premises. I should also mention that the cash which is suspected of being the proceeds of crime totalled $3,450.

11. The community is rightfully concerned about offences of this kind for precisely the reason that drugs cause harm of enormous proportions. Unfortunately the offender’s downward slide from productive, studious, member of society to a drug dealer is all too common. It is for this reason that the courts must respond by imposing significant sentences on those detected as being drug dealers in the hope that other people will not be subject to the same temptations that the offender was. General deterrence is of prime importance in cases of this kind.

12. Specific deterrence is also important in the present case. The offender has a long-term drug addiction, during his time in custody he has apparently been clean, but upon release to society he will have no partner, no job and so the temptations which he will face will be significant. It is important therefore that the offender knows that harsh punishment is inflicted on drug traffickers so that when he does face the temptations he must face upon release he will be able to consider the likely outcome of drug use, involving as it does such a short step to drug supply which will in turn see him returned to custody for longer and longer periods each time he offends.

13. If what the offender said in evidence is true then there has been a large change in attitude and outlook on his behalf. The offender says all the right things and his mother gave evidence that she has noticed a significant change in the offender’s outlook and behaviour since he went into custody. There are thus prospects for the offender’s rehabilitation. It is impossible to assess how good they are but I accept that the offender does desire to change his life. He accepts the terrible position he has put his mother in.

14. It was not that long ago that his parents separated after an unhappy marriage which involved the offender’s father treating his mother very badly. He has no relationship with his father anymore and does not even know where he is. The offender feels guilty, as he should, for the trouble he has caused his mother and I expect that this will be one significant factor suggesting that Mr Razzak will try to be a better son, which in particular means he will try not to use and supply drugs in the future.

15. The offender also expresses his remorse for his offending. He more than most knows the harm that drugs cause because he has been a victim of them himself. He recognises his role in causing harm to the drug users to whom he supplied drugs and he regrets his behaviour.

16. This is the offender’s first time in custody. He has one drug supply matter and drug possession matters on his criminal history. The drug supply matter was dealt with in the Local Court and he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment. There is no suggestion that he breached the good behaviour bond that came with that sentence of imprisonment.

17. So this is a significant escalation in the offender’s offending. It is conceded by Mr Breton who appears for the offender that nothing other than fulltime custody is appropriate. I agree, the offender was clearly trafficking to a substantial degree and there is no suggestion at all that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify anything other than a fulltime custodial sentence.

18. As Mr Breton correctly recognises the only issue for me is how long that sentence should be. The answer to that question is the minimum period which properly reflects the principles of sentencing which I must apply particularly the need for general deterrence and specific deterrence in this case.

19. There are special circumstances. Clearly it is in the offender’s favour, but more importantly the community’s interest that the offender be supervised upon his release from custody. He will need help in order to avoid reoffending and if that help achieves its object that the offender does not re-offend, then the community benefits. For that reason I will make a finding of special circumstances in the offender’s favour.

20. I will partially accumulate the two sentences I must impose for the supply of drugs matters. I must sentence for each offence and recognise that there is additional criminality by having additional drugs in his possession for the purposes of that supply in the two premises.

21. The sentence I impose is as follows:

22. For the offence of dealing with property being the suspected proceeds of crime, I deal with the matter under s 10A of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act, that is, he is convicted no further penalty. I do this on the basis that it is an aggravating feature of the offender’s supply charges that he was in fact supplying for profit. It would be quite wrong for me then to double count by imposing additional punishment on the dealing with property being a suspected proceeds of crime matter.

23. For the offence of supplying 9.83 grams I impose a sentence consisting of a non-parole period of 15 months with a head sentence of 30 months to date from the day Mr Razzak went into custody 28 August 2014.

24. For the offence of supplying 15.06 grams I take into account the two matters on the Form 1. I impose a sentence of 18 months non-parole period with a head sentence of 36 months to date from 28 November 2014.

25. Thus the overall sentence consists of a non-parole period of 21 months with a head sentence of 39 months, the non-parole period expiring on 27 May 2016 on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

26. I’ll dismiss the backup charges and make confiscation orders by consent..

**********

Decision last updated: 12 February 2016