Ahmad v R NSWCCA 294 (30 November 2023) Case Study Quiz

KnowledgeableGothicArt avatar

Start Quiz

Study Flashcards

12 Questions

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

What was the pure weight of the MDMA the appellant attempted to import?

594.43 kilograms

What was the maximum penalty for the offence the appellant was charged with?

Imprisonment for life

When did the appellant's non-parole period commence?

8 August 2017

What were the three grounds of appeal sought by the appellant?

Hardship to the appellant's family, manifestly excessive sentence, sense of grievance towards co-offender's sentence

What court sentenced Ahmad Ahmad in this case?

District Court

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?

Neither a nor b

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?

Considering the manifest excessiveness of the sentence

In what circumstance does the Court only consider a question of parity when reviewing a sentence?

When the sentence falls within the proper discretionary range

Which judge agreed to resentencing the appellant based on the erroneous omission of relevant family hardship factors?

All of the above

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?

Section 16A(2)

What should be imposed by a court when sentencing a federal offender according to the text?

A severity appropriate in all circumstances of the offense

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.

Test your knowledge on the legal case of Ahmad Ahmad's appeal to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in 2023 regarding drug importation charges. Explore the details of the case, including the legal sections involved and the final judgment.

Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards

Convert your notes into interactive study material.

Get started for free

More Quizzes Like This

Use Quizgecko on...