Legal Research
Cases
R v Al-Obidi

R v Al-Obidi

Case [2022] NZHC 1274 31 May 2022

Rehabilitative Progress

Remorse

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-001035

[2022] NZHC 1274

THE QUEEN

v

HUSSAIN AL-OBIDI

Hearing: 31 May 2022

Appearances:

David Johnstone for the Crown Tiffany Cooper for the Defendant

Judgment:

31 May 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v AL-OBIDI [2022] NZHC 1274 [31 May 2022]

Introduction

[1] Hussain Al-Obidi, at the age of 35 you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to 12 drug-dealing and related charges, being:

(a)one charge of possessing 2.418 kilograms of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale;1

(b)two charges of possessing 46 grams and 86.8 grams of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply;2

(c)two charges of supplying 25 grams, and offering to supply 56 grams, of methamphetamine;3

(d)one charge of possessing 3,300 tablets and 1.28 kilograms of powdered MDMA for the purpose of sale;4

(e)one charge of possessing one kilogram of ephedrine for the purpose of sale;5

(f)one charge of selling 160 grams of ephedrine;6

(g)one charge of possessing hypo-phosphorus acid and iodine for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine;7

(h)one charge of possession of firearms except for some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose;8 and

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(b). Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 12A(2)(b) and (3)(b). Maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
8      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding
$5,000, or both.

(i)two charges of possession of ammunition except for some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose.9

The offending

[2] I will first begin by describing the facts of your offending. These are set out in the summary of facts which you accept. The facts will obviously be familiar to you. But because sentencing is quintessentially a public function which is required to be undertaken in open Court, it is important that I set these out.

[3] From around June 2017 through to October 2018, you participated in what has been described as one of the largest drug syndicates ever to operate in this country; a large-scale commercial drug importing and distribution enterprise. The scheme was orchestrated by a X,10 a convicted drug dealer.

[4] X established this joint operation and recruited team members to perform various roles. Those who stockpiled and re-packaged drugs were referred to as “storemen”. Others who delivered drugs and collected cash payments were called “runners”. You were involved in the latter category. X communicated his instructions to you, and others, through a covert messaging application. This included…

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 Al-Obidi

Details

AGLC: R v Al-Obidi [2022] NZHC 1274
Case: [2022] NZHC 1274
Decision Date: 31 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hussain Al-Obidi was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand on 31 May 2022, having pleaded guilty to 12 drug-dealing and related charges. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence starting point and any adjustments based on Al-Obidi's personal circumstances. The legal issues included determining the appropriate classification of Al-Obidi's role within the drug syndicate, the impact of his addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder on his offending, and whether a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary.

The court found that Al-Obidi's role in the drug syndicate was between lesser and significant, resulting in a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment. The court also found that an uplift of two years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate for the remaining drug and firearms offending. Various mitigating factors, including Al-Obidi's addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, cultural dislocation, rehabilitative progress, and remorse, led to a substantial discount of 60 per cent, plus another one year and six months off for time spent on electronic monitoring bail. The final sentence was three years and 11 months' imprisonment for all charges, to be served concurrently. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment, as it found that the sentence adequately reflected the purposes of sentencing.

Orders