Podcast
Podcast
Podcast
Something went wrong
Questions and Answers
Questions and Answers
What was Ahmad Ahmad's charge in the case of Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294?
What was Ahmad Ahmad's charge in the case of Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294?
- Attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (correct)
- Conspiracy to commit a drug-related offense
- Possession of a controlled substance
- Drug trafficking
What was the pure weight of the MDMA the appellant attempted to import?
What was the pure weight of the MDMA the appellant attempted to import?
- 800 kilograms
- 500 kilograms
- 700 kilograms
- 594.43 kilograms (correct)
What was the maximum penalty for the offence the appellant was charged with?
What was the maximum penalty for the offence the appellant was charged with?
- 20 years' imprisonment
- Imprisonment for life (correct)
- 25 years' imprisonment
- 10 years' imprisonment
When did the appellant's non-parole period commence?
When did the appellant's non-parole period commence?
What were the three grounds of appeal sought by the appellant?
What were the three grounds of appeal sought by the appellant?
What court sentenced Ahmad Ahmad in this case?
What court sentenced Ahmad Ahmad in this case?
When resentencing a federal offender, what does the Court need to consider regarding the probable effect of a sentence on a family member or dependent?
When resentencing a federal offender, what does the Court need to consider regarding the probable effect of a sentence on a family member or dependent?
If legal error has been established in a sentencing decision and the Court of Criminal Appeal is to reassess the sentence, what is explicitly stated as unnecessary?
If legal error has been established in a sentencing decision and the Court of Criminal Appeal is to reassess the sentence, what is explicitly stated as unnecessary?
In what circumstance does the Court only consider a question of parity when reviewing a sentence?
In what circumstance does the Court only consider a question of parity when reviewing a sentence?
Which judge agreed to resentencing the appellant based on the erroneous omission of relevant family hardship factors?
Which judge agreed to resentencing the appellant based on the erroneous omission of relevant family hardship factors?
In what section does it state that when passing sentence for a federal offense, a court must consider the probable effect on the offender's family?
In what section does it state that when passing sentence for a federal offense, a court must consider the probable effect on the offender's family?
What should be imposed by a court when sentencing a federal offender according to the text?
What should be imposed by a court when sentencing a federal offender according to the text?
Questions and Answers
Something went wrong
Flashcards
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
Flashcards
Something went wrong
Study Notes
Study Notes
Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294
- The appellant, Ahmad Ahmad, pleaded guilty to attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, specifically 800 kilograms of MDMA with a pure weight of 594.43 kilograms.
- The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.
- The appellant was initially sentenced to 15 years and 2 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 9 months.
Grounds of Appeal
- The appellant sought leave to appeal on three grounds:
- The sentencing Judge failed to take into account hardship to the appellant’s family.
- The sentence is manifestly excessive.
- The appellant has a justifiable sense of grievance due to the sentence imposed on his co-offender Hassan Fakhreddine.
Court's Decision
- The Court granted leave to appeal and resentenced the appellant to 12 years and 8 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months.
- The Court held that a court sentencing a federal offender does not need to find exceptional circumstances or “exceptional hardship” before considering the probable effect of a sentence on a family member or dependant.
- The sentencing Judge erred in failing to take into account matters relevant to family hardship that were not considered as “exceptional circumstances”.
- The Court does not need to consider whether a sentence is manifestly excessive if error has been established and the Court is to embark on the exercise of the sentencing discretion afresh.
- The principle of parity is considered in the appellant's resentence, but only if the sentence is in all other respects an appropriate one and within the proper discretionary range of sentences applicable in the circumstances.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Study Notes
Something went wrong
