R v Zolfonoon - [2015] NSWDC 296

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zolfonoon [2015] NSWDC 296
Date of orders: 11 December 2015
Decision date: 11 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:
I impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 29 August 2013 and expiring 28 August 2017 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 28 May 2024. That is a total effective sentence of 10 years and nine months and a total effective non parole period of four years.

Catchwords: Criminal law – sentence – supply large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kamran Zolfonoon (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Walker SC with Mr Djemal (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Elie Rahme & Associates

File Number(s): 2013/262965

Remarks on sentence

On 17 July 2014, the offender, Mr Kamran Zolfonoon, pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence in this court on two counts of supplying prohibited drugs in a large commercial quantity. The first count concerned the supply of slightly in excess of 3½ kilograms of heroin and the second count concerned the supply of just over 9 kilograms of methylamphetamine. The offender maintained his pleas in this court and appears today for sentence, following a sentence hearing which commenced on 5 June 2015 and was then adjourned for further hearing on 30 October 2015.
The offender asks that when I sentence him in relation to the second of those two counts that I take into account 3 additional offences of possession of prohibited drugs, which are contained on a Form 1. The offender has acknowledged his guilt to the matters on the Form 1 and I consider it appropriate to take them into account, and will do so, when sentencing him in relation to the relevant count.
In November 2011, NSW Police commenced investigations in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs by a number of people including the offender. That investigation was conducted under the name Strike Force Taipan. The Police had 2 registered informers (one male and female) who agreed to provide information and assistance in those investigations. Those informers acted at the direction and upon the instruction of Police.
The male informer arranged to meet the offender on 16 November 2011 and on that day he introduced the female informer to the offender. The male informer told the offender that he and the female informer had been with lawyers all day and that they were under financial pressure on account of exorbitant legal fees. The male informer sought the assistance of the offender to source drugs for the female informer so that she could alleviate her financial difficulties through drug dealing. In the ensuing period, to February 2012, the female informer had numerous contacts with the offender, both by phone and in person. The offender made it clear to the female informer that he did not have the financial capacity to purchase the drugs sought…

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 Zolfonoon

Details

AGLC: R v Zolfonoon [2015] NSWDC 296
Case: [2015] NSWDC 296
Decision Date: 11 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Zolfonoon involved a defendant who was charged and subsequently convicted for the supply of a large commercial quantity of drugs. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Zolfonoon, contested the severity of the sentence imposed upon him following his conviction. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence handed down, particularly in relation to the length of the non-parole period and the overall aggregate sentence.

The legal issues before the court centred around the principles of sentencing in criminal law, specifically the factors that should be considered when determining an appropriate sentence for the supply of a large commercial quantity of drugs. The court was tasked with assessing whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in the circumstances. This involved examining the nature and extent of the offending, the culpability of the offender, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court found that while the trial judge had correctly identified the relevant principles and had given appropriate weight to the factors in determining the sentence, the overall sentence was excessive. The court acknowledged the severity of the offending but determined that the non-parole period should be reduced to better reflect the principles of proportionality and deterrence. After re-evaluating the sentence, the court imposed an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of four years, commencing on 29 August 2013, and expiring on 28 August 2017, with a balance of term of six years and nine months, expiring on 28 May 2024. This resulted in a total effective sentence of ten years and nine months and a total effective non-parole period of four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

I impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 29 August 2013 and expiring 28 August 2017 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 28 May 2024. That is a total effective sentence of 10 years and nine months and a total effective non parole period of four years.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Zolfonoon [2015] NSWDC 296
Date of orders:	11 December 2015
Decision date:	11 December 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:	I impose an aggregate sentence comprising a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 29 August 2013 and expiring 28 August 2017 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 28 May 2024. That is a total effective sentence of 10 years and nine months and a total effective non parole period of four years.
Catchwords:	Criminal law – sentence – supply large commercial quantity
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Kamran Zolfonoon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Walker SC with Mr Djemal (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Elie Rahme & Associates
File Number(s):	2013/262965