Citation: R v Chami; R v Hassoun; R v Halloum [2021] NSWDC 519
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 June 2021
Judge: M L Williams SC DCJ
Background
Three co-offenders, each aged around 30 at the time of sentencing, were convicted of supplying a large commercial quantity of cocaine contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years. All three had been in custody since their arrest on 4 November 2019.
The offenders were part of an organised criminal syndicate that operated a "call centre" model for cocaine distribution across Sydney. Customers placed orders by text message to one of two call centre numbers; runners then delivered deal bags of cocaine, typically containing 0.6 to 0.7 grams, for $300 each. The syndicate conducted approximately 150 transactions per week, generating estimated earnings of around $60,000 per week over a period exceeding four months.
Police identified three safe houses used by the group and gathered evidence through lawfully obtained telephone intercepts, optical and listening surveillance devices, and physical monitoring. On 4 November 2019, warrants were executed at multiple addresses. Officers located over 1.3 kilograms of cocaine across the safe houses, drug ledgers, significant cash, and in one offender's case, a quantity of ammunition. One co-offender also asked the court to deal with a firearm-related offence on a Form 1.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for each offender convicted of supplying a large commercial quantity of cocaine, given the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 15 years?
- How should the roles of the three co-offenders within the syndicate be differentiated for sentencing purposes?
- Was parity of sentence achievable across the three co-offenders, and to what extent did individual factors (prior record, role in the hierarchy, drug dependency) justify departure from uniformity?
- Did special circumstances exist justifying a variation from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence?
- How should the Form 1 ammunition possession offence be taken into account in the sentence for one offender?
Decision
The court was satisfied that all three offenders occupied senior roles in the syndicate, though with meaningful distinctions between them. Halloum was found to have a slightly higher role in the hierarchy than the other two: he managed one of the call centres, handled bulk cocaine, managed safe houses, and organised runners' rosters. His significant prior criminal record also distinguished him from his co-offenders, reducing the leniency otherwise available to him. Chami managed bulk cocaine and safe houses, and the Form 1 ammunition offence was taken into account in fixing his sentence. Hassoun's role as manager of the second call centre was found, to a limited extent, to sit marginally lower in the hierarchy than Chami's.
All three offenders pleaded guilty and received a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of their pleas. The court treated good character as a mitigating factor for both Hassoun and Chami, who had no prior records. All three were found to have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and to be unlikely to reoffend upon release, based on sentence assessment reports and the significant time spent in custody.
The court found special circumstances in each case, justifying a longer parole period than the statutory default. This reflected the offenders' age, their periods of presentence custody, histories of drug use, and the need for supervision and treatment to support reintegration into the community.
General and specific deterrence were both acknowledged as significant considerations, consistent with the serious nature of commercial drug supply offending.
Orders Made
- Ahmed Halloum: Convicted. Sentenced to 8 years and 3 months imprisonment commencing 4 November 2019. Non-parole period of 5 years, expiring 3 November 2024. Special circumstances found.
- Mohommed Chami: Convicted. Sentenced to 7 years and 10 months imprisonment commencing 4 November 2019 (incorporating the Form 1 ammunition matter). Non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, expiring 3 July 2024. Special circumstances found.
- Nouril Hassoun: Convicted. Sentenced to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing 4 November 2019. Non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, expiring 3 May 2024. Special circumstances found.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court applied careful role differentiation within a co-offender sentencing exercise, reflecting that even where offenders share the same charge and similar facts, individual hierarchy and prior record can justify meaningful sentencing disparities.
- A 25% discount for the utilitarian value of a guilty plea was applied uniformly across all three offenders, consistent with the agreed timing and circumstances of each plea.
- Special circumstances were found for all three offenders, based on a combination of youth, presentence custody, drug use histories, and the need for structured supervision upon release, allowing an extended parole period beyond the statutory ratio.
- Where a Form 1 offence is taken into account, the court applied the approach from the guideline judgment in Attorney General's Application No 1 of 2002, treating it as a factor that moderately increases the overall sentence rather than resulting in a separate penalty.
- Good character and the absence of prior convictions remained relevant mitigating factors, even in cases involving serious, organised commercial drug supply, though their weight was necessarily limited by the gravity of the principal offending.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 37
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 65(3)
Cases:
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
- Hurmz v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 235
- Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
- Lee v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 106
- Pham v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 217
- R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369