Sleiman v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 58

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Sleiman v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCCA 58

Hearing Date(s): 20/03/12

Decision Date: 11 April 2012

Jurisdiction:

Before:
McClellan CJ at CL at 1;
Davies J at 2;
Garling J at 3

Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed by Charteris DCJ on 14 April 2011.
(3) In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment without parole of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 23 June 2010 and to conclude on 22 December 2012.
(4) Sentence the applicant to a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months to conclude on 22 March 2014.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - Methylamphetamine supply offence at low end of indictable range - Extensive history of illicit substance abuse - Escalated after disappearance of brother - Drug dealer conduct to support habit - Discount for early plea of guilty and assistance to authorities - Close family support - Error in finding applicant on conditional liberty when offended - Finding aggravated sentence imposed - Applicant currently abstinent from drugs and alcohol for eight months - Undertaking programs for continued reform - Sentence reduced - No point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Cases Cited:

Texts Cited:

Category: Sentence

Parties:
Omar Sleiman
Regina

Representation

- Counsel:
D Carroll (applicant)
T Smith (respondent)

- Solicitors:
Legal Aid commission (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File number(s):
CCA 2010/157127

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

- Before: Charteris DCJ

- Date of Decision: 14 April 2011

- Citation:

- Court File Number(s) 2010/157127

Publication Restriction:
Nil

JUDGMENT

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Garling J.
DAVIES J: I agree with Garling J.
GARLING J: This is an application for leave to appeal in respect of a sentence imposed in the District Court by his Honour Justice Charteris on 14 April 2011.
The applicant, Mr Omar Sleiman, pleaded guilty before Charteris DCJ to one offence contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
The offence related to the fact that on 23 June 2010 at Granville, Mr Sleiman knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely, 21.8 grams of methylamphetamine.
The maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a $220,000 fine. No standard non-parole period applies.
As well as the offence to which he pleaded guilty, the applicant asked Charteris DCJ to take into account 11 further offences which were placed upon a List of Additional Charges (Form 1) pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The sentencing judge imposed an overall sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 23 June 2010, which was the date upon which the applicant was arrested and bail was refused.

Facts

The…

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 Sleiman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sleiman v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 58
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 58
Decision Date: 11 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Sleiman, the applicant, and The Queen. The dispute was regarding the severity of the sentence imposed on Sleiman for his involvement in the supply of methylamphetamine, which fell at the low end of the indictable range. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, who had a history of illicit substance abuse, pleaded guilty to the offence and showed assistance to the authorities. However, the sentencing judge found that the applicant was on conditional liberty when the offence was committed, which led to an aggravated sentence.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether there were any points of principle that warranted the intervention of the court. The court had to consider the applicant's history of drug abuse, his conduct as a drug dealer, and the mitigating factors such as his early guilty plea, assistance to authorities, and close family support. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the finding that the applicant was on conditional liberty when he offended was a mistake and whether it was an error to treat this as an aggravating factor.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that there was no point of principle that warranted the intervention of the court. The court acknowledged the applicant's extensive history of illicit substance abuse and the circumstances that led to his criminal conduct. The court also noted that the applicant had been abstinent from drugs and alcohol for eight months and was participating in programs for continued reform. Therefore, the court reduced the sentence imposed on the applicant. The court also found that the sentencing judge had erred in treating the fact that the applicant was on conditional liberty when he offended as an aggravating factor. However, the court held that this error did not give rise to any point of principle that warranted the intervention of the court.

Orders