R v Tommous Elchiekh [2013] NSWDC 238

R v Tommous Elchiekh [2013] NSWDC 238

The offender was involved in drug trafficking for profit, as shown by the quantities and variety of drugs, cash, notebook and bags, but the quantities were below large commercial quantities and he was not at or near the top of the distribution hierarchy. The objective seriousness was just below the mid-range. The four drug offences were interrelated but involved different drugs in comparatively large quantities, so total concurrency was not appropriate; an aggregate sentence with some accumulation was required. Half of the seven-year delay was taken into account, but no special circumstances were found. No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Four Counts of Deemed Supply of Prohibited Drugs / Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty
Outcome
Offender convicted on all four counts and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment, with cash forfeited.
Legal Topics
['deemed Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'drug Trafficking' 'aggregate Sentences of Imprisonment' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'delay in Sentencing' 'forfeiture of Cash']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['deemed Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'drug Trafficking' 'aggregate Sentences of Imprisonment' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'delay in Sentencing' 'forfeiture of Cash']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing for Four Counts of Deemed Supply of Prohibited Drugs / Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for four counts of deemed supply of prohibited drugs found at the offender's leased premises." 'Whether the offending should be treated as one episode warranting concurrent sentences or as involving separate criminality requiring accumulation within an aggregate sentence.' 'Whether delay between the offending and arrest should mitigate sentence.' 'Whether special circumstances justified departure from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and overall sentence.' 'Whether cash found at the premises should be forfeited.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was involved in drug trafficking for profit, as shown by the quantities and variety of drugs, cash, notebook and bags, but the quantities were below large commercial quantities and he was not at or near the top of the distribution hierarchy. The objective seriousness was just below the mid-range. The four drug offences were interrelated but involved different drugs in comparatively large quantities, so total concurrency was not appropriate; an aggregate sentence with some accumulation was required. Half of the seven-year delay was taken into account, but no special circumstances were found. No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on all four counts and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment, with cash forfeited.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of the four Counts on the Indictment and pursuant to s 53A an aggregated term of imprisonment is imposed.' 'The Court fixes an aggregate non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months to commence on 8 January 2013 and to expire on 7 July 2020, and an aggregate total term of 10 years to...