Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294 (30 November 2023) Case Overview

What was Ahmad Ahmad charged with?

What was the pure weight of the MDMA attempted to be imported?

What was the maximum penalty for the offence that Ahmad Ahmad was charged with?

When did the appellant, Ahmad Ahmad, commence his 15 years and 2 months’ imprisonment sentence?

What were the three grounds of appeal that Ahmad Ahmad sought leave to raise?

What was Hassan Fakhreddine's relation to the case?

What did the Court hold regarding considering family hardship when sentencing a federal offender?

What did the Court determine should happen when error is established in sentencing by the Court of Criminal Appeal?

Under what circumstances does this Court consider a question of parity?

What did the appellant abandon in their case according to the content?

What must a court do when determining sentencing for a federal offense, according to the provided text?

What should be taken into account alongside other matters when sentencing for a federal offense, based on the text?

Sentencing Guidelines

The court must consider the probable effect of a sentence on the offender's family or dependants when determining the sentence.
The court does not need to find exceptional circumstances or "exceptional hardship" before considering the impact on family members.

Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294

The appellant, Ahmad Ahmad, pleaded guilty to attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug.
The offence occurred over a period of 10 months in 2016-2017, involving 800 kilograms of MDMA with a pure weight of 594.43 kilograms.
The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for life.

Original Sentencing

The appellant was sentenced to 15 years and 2 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 9 months.
The sentence commenced on 8 August 2017.

Appeal and Resentencing

The Court held that the sentencing Judge erred in failing to consider the probable effect of the sentence on the appellant's family.
The appellant was resentenced to 12 years and 8 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.
The Court did not consider whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive, as it was the product of legal error.

Principles of Parity

The principle of parity is only considered when the sentence is accepted as appropriate and within the proper discretionary range.
The appellant abandoned the ground of appeal related to parity, and it was considered in the resentencing.

Explore the case overview of Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294 dated 30 November 2023. Understand the legal proceedings and charges faced by the appellant, Ahmad Ahmad, in relation to attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug.