Abdul-Hamid v R [2016] NSWCCA 118

Abdul-Hamid v R [2016] NSWCCA 118

The sentencing judge was entitled to find, on all the evidence, that the applicant was aware of the quantity of drugs and played a more significant role than his co-offender; no appealable error was demonstrated in the fact-finding or the assessment of objective gravity of the offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'knowingly Take Part in the Supply of a Prohibited Drug' 'objective Gravity of Offence' 'fact Finding at Sentence' 'knowledge of Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'relative Roles of Co Offenders']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'knowingly Take Part in the Supply of a Prohibited Drug' 'objective Gravity of Offence' 'fact Finding at Sentence' 'knowledge of Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'relative Roles of Co Offenders']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the sentencing judge err in finding that the applicant knew the quantity of drugs to be purchased by Ibrahim?' 'Did the sentencing judge err in concluding that the applicant played a more significant role than Ibrahim?']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to find, on all the evidence, that the applicant was aware of the quantity of drugs and played a more significant role than his co-offender; no appealable error was demonstrated in the fact-finding or the assessment of objective gravity of the offence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence is refused']