ALCHIKH, Mohamad Raghid v R [2007] NSWCCA 345

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: ALCHIKH, Mohamad Raghid v R [2007] NSWCCA 345

HEARING DATE(S): 5 April 2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Handley AJA at 1; Hulme J at 29; Hall J at 30

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted;; 2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Assistance to authorities - To be determined on objective and pragmatic basis - No discount for assistance proffered but rejected

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code (Cth) Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

CASES CITED: R v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220

PARTIES: Mohamad Raghid ALCHIKH v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/4719 (formerly 2007/37)

COUNSEL: P F Hogan (Appellant) M A Wigney SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Hardinlaw (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 04/11/0579

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 31 August 2005

- 8 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 2005/4719 (formerly 2007/37) DC 04/11/0579

HANDLEY AJA HULME J HALL J

Friday 14 December 2007 MOHAMAD RAGHID ALCHIKH v R

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Assistance to authorities - To be determined on objective and pragmatic basis - No discount for assistance proffered but rejected

The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import 20 times the minimum commercial quantity of ecstasy tablets. After discounts for his plea and for assistance given to the authorities he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of 7 years 3 months. The principal argument in support of his application for leave to appeal was that he had been given an inadequate discount for his assistance to the authorities. The sentencing Judge found that his assistance was significant but not major and he was not likely to give further assistance in the future. These findings were based on the Crown's decision that his evidence at committal exculpating two of his co-accused was not reliable and he would not be called to give evidence in the Crown case against them. The applicant argued that his evidence exculpating two of his co-accused was reliable and that the Court should delay giving judgment until the result of the appeal of one of the co-accused from his conviction had been determined.