Regina v Taouk - [2005] NSWCCA 53

CITATION:
Regina v Taouk [2005] NSWCCA 53

HEARING DATE(S): 17 February 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

17 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Bell J at 34; Buddin J at 35

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - DRUG TRAFFICKING - CONSTRUCTING SUPPLY - FORM 1 OFFENCES INCLUDING OFFENCE CARRYING PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM OF LIFE IPRISONMENT - LARGE CRIMINAL NETWORK - PARITY - NO ERROR IN ASSESSMENT BY SENTENCING JUDGE

CASES CITED:
AG's Apln under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 2002 56 NSWLR 146
Lowe v The Queen 1984 154 CLR 606
Pearce v The Queen 1998 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen 1997 189 CLR 295
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63
R v Perese 2001 126 A Crim R 508

PARTIES:
Regina v Hanna Taouk

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/1865

COUNSEL:
J. Girdham (Crown)
S. Kluss (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
Ross Hill & Associates (Applicant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/11/0035

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Nicholson DCJ

2004/1865

GROVE J
BELL J
BUDDIN J
17 February 2005

REGINA v HANNA TAOUK

Judgment

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Nicholson DCJ in the Sydney District Court.

2 The applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing two counts. The first count charged supply of the prohibited drug cocaine, his possession of 28 grams exceeding the traffickable quantity and thus attracting the statutory provisions relating to deemed supply. That offence occurred on 7 September 2001.

3 The second count charged supply of a prohibited drug, again cocaine, in not less than the large commercial quantity. That offence was alleged to have occurred between 5 and 8 January 2001 and was based upon an agreement to supply the drug evidenced by arrangements made by the applicant in various telephone calls, the content of which was intercepted by police. There was no actual supply save a small amount described as a “sample”.

4 His Honour was also asked to take into account, pursuant to the Form 1 procedure, seven further offences which can shortly be described as custody of a knife in a public place; goods in custody (cash $1,180); supply prohibited drug (cocaine); knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug (28.4 grams of cocaine); supply prohibited drug (0.7 grams of cocaine); supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) and supply prohibited drug (cannabis leaf).

5 On the first count his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for two years and three months commencing on 7 September 2001 and expiring on 6 December 2003 and, on the second count, taking the Form 1 matters into account, imprisonment for a term of six years commencing on 7 December 2003 with a non-parole period of two years and three months commencing on that date and expiring on 6 March 2006. The last mentioned date is the earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for consideration of…

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 Regina v Taouk

Details

AGLC: Regina v Taouk [2005] NSWCCA 53
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 53
Decision Date: 17 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the conviction of a defendant, Taouk, for drug trafficking, with the primary legal issue being the assessment of the appropriate sentence. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal, where the defendant appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge in the lower court. The lower court had found Taouk guilty of drug trafficking offences, including the construction of supply, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment with a prescribed maximum of life imprisonment. Taouk's appeal focused on the assessment of his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred in various respects.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentencing judge had made any errors in assessing the appropriate sentence for Taouk. The court examined the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and extent of Taouk's involvement in the drug trafficking activities, the scale of the criminal network, and the need for parity in sentencing. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and had not erred in their assessment of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the appropriate sentence for Taouk. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors and had appropriately weighed the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also found that there was no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of parity, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal. The defendant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately assessed the appropriate sentence for Taouk, and that there was no error in their assessment.

Orders