Ahmad v R [2023] NSWCCA 294

Ahmad v R [2023] NSWCCA 294

The sentencing Judge, although applying the then conventional understanding of the law, erred by not taking into account matters relevant to family hardship that were not regarded as exceptional. That error required the sentence to be set aside and the sentencing discretion exercised afresh. On resentencing, the Court took into account the seriousness of the attempted importation, the appellant's role, subjective matters, family hardship, rehabilitation in custody, specific deterrence, and parity with co-offenders, and imposed a lesser sentence of 12 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Appellant Resentenced
Outcome
Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, sentence set aside, and appellant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['attempt to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'federal Sentencing' 'family Hardship' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['attempt to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'federal Sentencing' 'family Hardship' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'manifest Excess']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Appellant Resentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing Judge erred by failing to take into account hardship to the appellant's family or by applying a wrong principle to that consideration under s 16A(2)(p) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)." 'Whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether parity with co-offenders, including Hassan Fakhreddine, affected the appropriate sentence on resentencing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing Judge, although applying the then conventional understanding of the law, erred by not taking into account matters relevant to family hardship that were not regarded as exceptional. That error required the sentence to be set aside and the sentencing discretion exercised afresh. On resentencing, the Court took into account the seriousness of the attempted importation, the appellant's role, subjective matters, family hardship, rehabilitation in custody, specific deterrence, and parity with co-offenders, and imposed a lesser sentence of 12 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, sentence set aside, and appellant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Extend time within which to seek leave to appeal to 14 February 2023.' 'Grant leave to appeal.' 'The sentence imposed by the District Court on 22 June 2020 be set aside.' 'The appellant is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months with a balance of term of 5 years and 2...