R v Hejazi [2003] NSWCCA 383

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Hejazi [2003] NSWCCA 383 HEARING DATE(S) : Wednesday 3 December 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJ at CL at 1, 25; Smart AJ at 24 DECISION : Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - supply not less than the commercial quantity methylamphetamine - supply not less than the large commercial quantiy of mehtylamphetamine - whether sentence imposed was disproportionate to those imposed on co-offender. Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 57 NSWLR 146 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 CASES CITED : Postiglione v The Queen (1996) 189 CLR 295 Regina v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58 Regina v Koklas [2003] NSWCCA 302 R v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181 R v Richards [1981] 2 NSWLR 464 PARTIES : Regina Michael Mohammed Hejazi FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60339/03 COUNSEL : D Arnott (Crown) M Bozic SC SOLICITORS : C. K. Smith (Crown) S. E. O'Connor

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 02/21/3380 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Hock DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

- 9 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60339/03

WOOD CJ at CL SMART AJ

Wednesday 12 December 2003 Regina v Michael Mohammed Hejazi Judgment 1 WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the sentences imposed upon him by her Honour Hock DCJ, in the District Court, on 14 February 2003, following pleas of guilty which had been entered in the Local Court to one count of supplying not less than the commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine (count 1), and to one count of supplying not less than the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (count 2). Five offences of supplying a prohibited drug, and one count of supplying not less the commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, were taken into account on a Form 1, when the applicant was sentenced on count 2. 2 The sentence imposed in relation to count 1 was one of imprisonment for a fixed term of four years, while that imposed, in relation to count 2, was one of imprisonment for nine years with a non-parole period of six years. The sentences were directed to be served concurrently with one another.