Ahmad v R [2012] NSWCCA 273

Ahmad v R [2012] NSWCCA 273

The sentencing judge did not double count or aggravate count 1 by reference to count 3, because the findings reflected the applicant's overall criminality and the transactions in count 1 were not relied on in count 3. The sentencing judge sufficiently considered the applicant's subjective circumstances, and no discretionary sentencing error was identified. Given the organised street-level drug supply, numerous transactions, use of false-name mobile phones, Form 1 matters and exposure of the applicant's daughter to prohibited drugs, neither the individual sentences nor the overall sentence were manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'supplying Prohibited Drugs' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'subjective Circumstances' 'totality' 'manifest Excess' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'supplying Prohibited Drugs' 'ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'subjective Circumstances' 'totality' 'manifest Excess' 'form 1 Offences']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by regarding count 3 as aggravating repetitive conduct in count 1.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the applicant's subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not double count or aggravate count 1 by reference to count 3, because the findings reflected the applicant's overall criminality and the transactions in count 1 were not relied on in count 3. The sentencing judge sufficiently considered the applicant's subjective circumstances, and no discretionary sentencing error was identified. Given the organised street-level drug supply, numerous transactions, use of false-name mobile phones, Form 1 matters and exposure of the applicant's daughter to prohibited drugs, neither the individual sentences nor the overall sentence were manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Order that the appeal be dismissed.']