Ibrahim Jidah v R [2014] NSWCCA 269

Ibrahim Jidah v R [2014] NSWCCA 269

The conviction appeal was dismissed because it raised the same issues as Yousef Jidah's appeal and, for the reasons given there, conviction on both counts did not warrant quashing either conviction. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the sentencing remarks revealed an erroneous Muldrock two-stage approach to the standard non-parole period, and the later re-sentence of DS produced an unjustified disparity requiring the appellant's sentence to be adjusted to reflect equal justice. The Court held that it was open to the sentencing judge to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the approximate quantity of drugs involved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; sentence on Count 6 quashed and appellant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Precursor' 'pseudoephedrine' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1983 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Precursor' 'pseudoephedrine' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'muldrock Error' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1983 (nsw)']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether convictions on both Count 6 and Count 7 caused a miscarriage of justice because the elements of the supply offence were contained in the elements of the precursor offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the supply offence by failing to take into account the inter-related nature of the two offences.' 'Whether it was open to the sentencing judge to find that the appellant had knowledge of at least the approximate, if not the precise, quantity of drugs involved.' 'Whether the sentencing judge applied an erroneous two-stage approach to the standard non-parole period contrary to Muldrock v The Queen.' 'Whether the sentence breached the principle of parity when compared with sentences imposed on co-offenders.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal was dismissed because it raised the same issues as Yousef Jidah's appeal and, for the reasons given there, conviction on both counts did not warrant quashing either conviction. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the sentencing remarks revealed an erroneous Muldrock two-stage approach to the standard non-parole period, and the later re-sentence of DS produced an unjustified disparity requiring the appellant's sentence to be adjusted to reflect equal justice. The Court held that it was open to the sentencing judge to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the approximate quantity of drugs involved.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; sentence on Count 6 quashed and appellant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'The sentence imposed in the District Court on 23 September 2011 on Count 6 on the indictment is quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, a sentence of imprisonment of 12 years and 6 months is imposed, commencing on 27 April 2010 and expiring on 26...