District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zoghbi [2022] NSWDC 219 Hearing dates: 18 March 2022 Date of orders: 17 June 2022 Decision date: 17 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Sutherland SC DCJ Decision: At [262]-[265]
Catchwords: CRIME – Sentence – Federal Offences – Conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth – s 135.4(1) Criminal Code – Defrauding the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme – Ongoing course of conduct – Falsifying prescriptions – Loss to Commonwealth of $19.35 million
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes Act1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Canning v Northcott (unreported, WASC Library Number 7194, 14 July 1988)
Corbett v R (1991) 52 A Crim R 112
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
DPP (Cth) v Phan [2016] VSCA 170
DPP v Golic [2014] VSCA 355
DPP v Hamman (unreported, NSWCCA, 1 December 1988)
El-Chaar v R [2007] NSWCCA 16
El Rakhawy v R [2011] WASCA 209
Greentree v R [2018] NSWCCA 227
Issakidis v R [2019] NSWCCA 302
Ly v R [2014] NSWCCA 78
Markarian v The Queen [2005] 228 CLR 357
Neil Harris (a pseudonym) v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 236
O’Meara v R [2009] NSWCCA 90
Quetcher v R [2010] NSWCCA 257
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Buckman [2016] QCA 176
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Cox; R v Cuffe; R v Morrison [2013] QCA 10
R v Dunn (No 9) [2014] WASC 61
R v Host [2015] WASCA 23
R v Jafari [2017] NSWCCA 152
R v Price [2008] QCA 330
R v Van Tung Luu (unreported, NSWCCA, 7 December 1984)
Ryan v R [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Stitt v R (1998) 102 A Crim R 428
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75
Veen [No 2] [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Yorkv The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 466
Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category: Sentence Parties: Crown
Hamza Amin ZoghbiRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
P McGuire SC with B Narula
C P O’Donnell SC with S Jeppesen
Crown: Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Defence: R Rahal, Cambridge Law
File Number(s): 2018/00216237 Publication restriction: I make a suppression order and non-publication order pursuant to the provisions of s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) with respect to paragraphs 240 – 242 of these Remarks.
INDEX
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SUBJECTIVE CASE FOR THE OFFENDER
COMPARATIVE CASES
SENTENCING FACTORS
Nature and circumstances of the offence
Course of conduct
Injury, loss or damage
The degree to which the person has shown contrition
Cooperation with law enforcement agencies
Specific deterrence
General deterrence
Adequate punishment
Subjective circumstances of the offender
Prospects of rehabilitation
Probable effect on the offender’s family
Other relevant factors: Extra-curial punishment
Other relevant factors: Delay
DETERMINATION
sentence
-
Hamza Zoghbi appears for sentence with respect to one offence, shortly…
Continue reading R v Zoghbi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Zoghbi [2022] NSWDC 219
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence failed to adequately reflect the mitigating factors and was disproportionate in relation to the crimes committed. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in the context of fraud against the Commonwealth, the gravity of the offence, and the need for deterrence. The court also had to examine the appellant's personal circumstances and the mitigating factors presented in his defence.
The court acknowledged the significant loss to the Commonwealth caused by the appellant's actions, emphasising the gravity of the fraud and the need for a sentence that reflected these factors. However, the court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and mitigating factors, such as his cooperation with authorities and expressions of remorse. After weighing these considerations, the court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge was affirmed. The appellant's conviction and sentence were therefore upheld in their entirety.
Orders
Orders of the court
At [262]-[265]
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.