Rahmani v The Queen

In the matter of Rahmani v The Queen, the appellant, Rahmani, appealed against his sentence for drug trafficking, possession of a handgun, and possessing unregistered firearms. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. Rahmani was convicted of possessing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, possessing a handgun, and possessing unregistered firearms. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed, a total effective sentence of 10 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months, was manifestly excessive.

The court needed to determine if the sentence and non-parole period were within the range of sentences appropriate for the gravity of the offences, considering the legislative hierarchy of trafficking offences, the high moral culpability, and the offender's motivation by profit. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge had expressed a settled intention regarding the non-parole period. The court found that the sentence and non-parole period were within the appropriate range, considering the circumstances. The judge had also expressed a settled intention regarding the non-parole period, taking into account the offender's lack of remorse.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence and non-parole period were upheld. The court relied on relevant legislative provisions and precedents, including Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71, Gregory (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 151, and Wallace v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 520; [2012] VSCA 114. The court found that the sentence was appropriate for the gravity of the offences and that the judge had properly considered the relevant factors in determining the non-parole period.