CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against severity of sentence - conpiracy to supply not less than large commercial quantity of heroin - guilty plea - take part in supply of cocaine - Form 1 - proper characterisation of offence where drug "rip off" involved - parity of sentence with co offender.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking 1985

DECISION:
1.Leave to appeal granted; 2. Sentence below quashed, and in lieu thereof, taking into account the Form 1 offence and the plea of guilty, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months to date from 15 December 1999 and to expire on 14 June 2007. 3. A Non parole period of 5 years is set, to commence from 15 December 1999 and to expire on 14 December 2004.

JUDGMENT:

- 11 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60846/00
WOOD CJ at CL
SMART AJ
Wednesday 2 October 2002

Regina v Mohamed Yaghi

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Woods QC in the District Court at Sydney on 15 December 2000, following his plea of guilty to 1 count of conspiracy to supply not less than a large commercial quantity of heroin. An offence of knowingly take part in the supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine was also taken into account on a Form 1. The sentence imposed was one of imprisonment for 10 years with a non parole period of 6 years and 6 months.
Facts
At the time of the offences, the applicant was a serving police officer whose activities became the subject of investigation by the Investigation Unit, Special Crime and Internal Affairs. In the course of that investigation, his involvement with 2 co-conspirators, Ned Hammoud and Frank Moussa, in negotiations to supply heroin to a person, “Brian”, was discovered. These negotiations took place between 27 May 1999 and 16 June 1999. So far as the applicant was concerned, they involved an arrangement whereby 4 blocks of heroin, each weighing 350 grams, were ostensibly to be supplied for a price of $60,000 per block, or “Tile” as the blocks were described. The negotiations mainly took place by the use of various mobile phones, but there was also a trip to Melbourne on 13 June 1999 by the applicant and Hammoud, in the course of which there were meetings with Moussa and “Brian”.
The police investigation into this offence, and into the cocaine offence next mentioned, involved physical surveillance as well as considerable…

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 Yaghi

Details

AGLC: R v Yaghi [2002] NSWCCA 396
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 396
Decision Date: 2 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Yaghi, the defendant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the court for his involvement in a conspiracy to supply a large commercial quantity of heroin. Yaghi had pleaded guilty to his part in the conspiracy and to taking part in the supply of cocaine. The appeal focused on the proper characterisation of the offence, particularly in relation to a "rip off" of drugs, and the parity of sentence with a co-offender. The case was heard in the higher court of appeal.

The primary legal issues in this case were the appropriate characterisation of the offence and whether the sentence imposed was just and proportionate. The appellant argued that the offence should be characterised in a way that reflected the "rip off" of drugs, which he claimed should result in a lesser sentence. Additionally, Yaghi contended that his sentence should be comparable to that of his co-offender to ensure parity. The court had to consider these arguments and determine if the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances.

The court examined the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the drug "rip off". It found that while the appellant's involvement was significant, the "rip off" did not alter the fundamental nature of the conspiracy to supply a large quantity of heroin. Consequently, the court determined that the lower court had correctly characterised the offence. Regarding parity with the co-offender, the court noted that the sentences should reflect the individual roles and culpability of each offender. Despite Yaghi's arguments, the court upheld the sentence as appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed. The court held that the sentence was just and that the appellant's arguments did not warrant a reduction in the penalty imposed.

Orders