R v Yousif (No 2)

Case [2020] NSWDC 386


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yousif (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 386
Hearing dates: 24 February – 3 March 2020
Date of orders: 25 June 2020
Decision date: 25 June 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

The aggregate term of three years imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order.

Catchwords:

Criminal law sentencing - joint criminal enterprise - participate in criminal group - knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug - use false document to influence exercise of a public duty - extra curial punishment 

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Einfeldv R [2010] NSWCCA 87

Prculovski v R [2010] NSWCCA 274

R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173

R v Tuki (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 1864

Wat v R [2017] NSWCCA 62

Wuangv R [2017] NSWCCA 312

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Alina Yousif (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Kerr (Crown)
D Edwardson QC (Offender)

Solicitors:
L Sampson (Crown)
A Taleb (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/00368997

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Alina Yousif appears for sentence. She was charged with three offences:

1) Participate in a criminal group in contravention of s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900,

2) Use a false document with the intention of inducing a person to accept it as genuine and to then influence that person to exercise a public duty in contravention of s 254(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act, and

3) Knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 55.5 grams of methylamphetamine in contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

  1. The offence of participating in a criminal group attracts a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The offence of use a false document to influence a public official carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. The offence of supplying a prohibited drug carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000. No standard non‑parole period applies.

  2. She was arraigned before a jury on 24 February 2020 and pleaded not guilty. She gave evidence on 2 March 2020. The jury found her guilty of all counts. They rejected her account.

  3. The offender was a solicitor. She was in a relationship with Clinton Parkinson. He was a member of the Bandidos motorcycle club and a criminal. She met him while he was in gaol having been re-sentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2010 following a successful Crown appeal in relation to the supply of 563.3 grams of methylamphetamine and the possession of firearms.

  4. He was released on parole on 12 July 2016. By August 2017 New South Wales police commenced a targeted investigation into his conduct. A number of telephone warrants were granted for the mobile phone services of Mr Parkinson and the co-offender David Oddy (the supply charge).

  5. A number of audio and visual surveillance devices were placed in Mr Parkinson’s home which he shared…

Continue reading R v Yousif (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Yousif (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 386
Case
[2020] NSWDC 386
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yousif (No 2) was heard in a higher court in Australia and involved a dispute about sentencing for a criminal offence. The defendant, Mr Yousif, was found guilty of participating in a joint criminal enterprise, specifically for knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug. He was also convicted of using a false document to influence the exercise of a public duty. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Mr Yousif's crimes.

The primary legal issues before the court were the principles of sentencing for Mr Yousif's crimes and the appropriate punishment given his involvement in the joint criminal enterprise and his use of a false document. The court considered factors such as the nature of the offences, the extent of Mr Yousif's involvement, and his criminal history. Additionally, the court had to weigh the need for deterrence and the protection of the community against the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented before determining the appropriate sentence for Mr Yousif. The court found that the aggregate term of three years imprisonment was suitable, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences. However, the court also acknowledged the potential for rehabilitation and decided to impose the sentence by way of an intensive correction order. This decision allowed Mr Yousif to serve his sentence in the community, under supervision, rather than in a correctional facility.

The court's final order was that Mr Yousif would serve an aggregate term of three years imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

The aggregate term of three years imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order.

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.