R v Merhi [2020] NSWDC 910

R v Merhi [2020] NSWDC 910

The offender's criminality warranted imprisonment because he knowingly permitted the rear shed to be used for substantial prohibited drug manufacturing processes, thereby enabling dissemination of manufactured drugs, although he was not proved to be an organiser, direct participant, distributor, or substantial beneficiary and was not proved to know the quantities manufactured. Count 3 was well below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, while Counts 1 and 2 were at the lower end but not the lowest. Special circumstances justified a longer parole supervision period. Because the same course of conduct constituted the three offences and the totality of criminality was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Judge Alone Findings of Guilt
Outcome
Sentenced to a total sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months; all sentences concurrent.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Take Part in Manufacture of a Prohibited Drug' 'indictable Quantity' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'objective Seriousness' 'prior Good Character' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'totality and Concurrency']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['knowingly Take Part in Manufacture of a Prohibited Drug' 'indictable Quantity' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'objective Seriousness' 'prior Good Character' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'totality and Concurrency']

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 Sentence / Sentence Following Judge Alone Findings of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed for three offences of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of prohibited drugs.' "How the offender's role in permitting the rear shed to be used, without being an organiser or direct participant in manufacture, affected objective seriousness." 'Whether mitigating factors including no prior criminal convictions, limited prior good character, lack of contrition or co-operation, and prospects of rehabilitation affected sentence.' 'Whether special circumstances justified altering the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and balance of sentence.' 'Whether the sentences should be concurrent or partly cumulative having regard to totality of criminality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's criminality warranted imprisonment because he knowingly permitted the rear shed to be used for substantial prohibited drug manufacturing processes, thereby enabling dissemination of manufactured drugs, although he was not proved to be an organiser, direct participant, distributor, or substantial beneficiary and was not proved to know the quantities manufactured. Count 3 was well below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, while Counts 1 and 2 were at the lower end but not the lowest. Special circumstances justified a longer parole supervision period. Because the same course of conduct constituted the three offences and the totality of criminality was not...

Court Disposition

Sentenced to a total sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months; all sentences concurrent.

Orders

  • ['Count 1: convicted of knowingly take part in the manufacture of an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment commencing on 5 November 2020 and expiring on 4 November 2022.' 'Count 2 alternative: convicted of knowingly take part in the manufacture of an indictable quantity of...