R v Rostami [2023] NSWDC 437

R v Rostami [2023] NSWDC 437

The offender was sentenced on one count of manufacture prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) greater than large commercial quantity, contrary to s 24(2) of the DMTA. The objective seriousness was below mid-range due to her subordinate role, lack of sophistication, and subjugation to the principal offender. Her mental health, history of deprivation, remorse and rehabilitation prospects reduced her moral culpability and the relevance of general and specific deterrence. Parity principles were applied. The appropriate sentence was 5 years 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Parties
Crown: Director of Public Prosecutions; Offender: Saba Rostami
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Fulltime imprisonment. For orders see [111].
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Manufacture of Prohibited Drug, Sentencing, Parity in Sentencing, Mental Health and Sentencing, Remorse and Rehabilitation
Criminal Law Drug Offences Manufacture of Prohibited Drug Sentencing Parity in Sentencing Mental Health and Sentencing Remorse and Rehabilitation

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Crown

Saba Rostami

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Sentencing for manufacture of prohibited drug greater than large commercial quantity under s 24(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence considering objective seriousness, parity, mental health, remorse and prospects of rehabilitation
  3. 3 Application of general deterrence versus diminished significance due to mental health and deprivation

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was sentenced on one count of manufacture prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) greater than large commercial quantity, contrary to s 24(2) of the DMTA. The objective seriousness was below mid-range due to her subordinate role, lack of sophistication, and subjugation to the principal offender. Her mental health, history of deprivation, remorse and rehabilitation prospects reduced her moral culpability and the relevance of general and specific deterrence. Parity principles were applied. The appropriate sentence was 5 years 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Court Disposition

Fulltime imprisonment. For orders see [111].

Orders

  • Offender convicted of manufacture prohibited drug greater than large commercial quantity (s 24(2) DMTA).
  • Imprisonment: 5 years 6 months from 6 February 2021 to 5 August 2026.