Regina v Omar Kaddour

[2007] NSWDC 335

CITATION:	Regina v Omar Kaddour [2007] NSWDC 335
HEARING DATE(S):	Trial - 19/2/07 - 23/02/07 Sentence - 20/04/07 & 31/05/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	31 May 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eighteen months to be served by way of periodic detention.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence after guilty verdict - Deemed supply of a prohibited drug (2) - Supply for commercial purpose - Range of objective seriousness - Young offender (21yrs at time of offence) - First time in custody - Remorse - Hardship to third parties - Rehabilitation - Special circumstances - Periodic detention
LEGISLATION CITED:	ss 21A, 66, 71, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 25, 29, 31, 39P Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
CASES CITED:	Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104 Regina v Nguyen (2006) 166 ACrimR 124 Regina v Pilley (1991) 56 ACrimR 202 Regina v Ramos (2000) ACrimR 339 Regina v Simpson [2006] NSWCCA 117
PARTIES:	Regina Omar Kaddour
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/21/3256
COUNSEL:	Mr Howen for Omar Kaddour
SOLICITORS:	Mr Williams for the NSW DPP

JUDGMENT

1. Omar Kaddour was arraigned before a jury at Campbelltown on 20 February 2007 charged with two drug offences. They were both offences of supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. They were both cases of deemed supply in that the offender had in his possession amounts of each drug that were not less than the trafficable quantity. Hence he was deemed to have the drug in his possession for supply in accordance with s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act because he failed to satisfy the jury by which he was tried that he had it in his possession otherwise than for supply.

2. The drug in the first count of the indictment was 3,4methylenedioxymethylamphetamine and the drug which was the subject of the second count was methylamphetamine. Each of the offences carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years imprisonment in accordance with s 32(1)(g) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

3. I turn now to the objective facts of the offences. Drawing upon the evidence called before the jury I find the following as objective facts and they are proved to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt and in my opinion are consistent with the jury verdicts.

4. At about 5.45pm on Tuesday 10 August 2006 the offender was seen by police driving a car along Hume Highway at Yagoona. There was another man who was his passenger. His driving alerted the attention of the police who stopped him. He appeared very nervous and the two men behaved in a way which the police regarded as suspicious. The offender denied having anything illegal in his possession but the other man admitted to having some “pills on me”. At the same time a sunglasses cases fell from the bottom of the other man’s pants onto the ground.…