AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 22 May 2025

R v Ahmad (No 2)

[2025] NSWDC 184

Assault & violenceDrugsFirearms & weaponsPublic order & justice offences
SENTENCING — SENTENCE FOLLOWING JUDGE

Citation: R v Ahmad (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 184
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 May 2025
Judge: Sutherland SC DCJ

Background

Following a judge-alone trial in late November and early December 2024, the offender was found guilty on all six counts on the indictment. The verdict judgment was delivered on 13 December 2024 (R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676). The sentencing judgment followed on 22 May 2025.

The offending arose from a police operation on 28 December 2022 in Concord, New South Wales. Police observed the offender driving a black VW Amarok and, after he exited the vehicle, arrested him on Patterson Street. During arrest, the offender smashed his mobile phone against a brick wall and physically resisted police before being restrained and handcuffed.

A subsequent search of the Amarok uncovered 363.8 grams of methylamphetamine, a loaded .22 calibre GEVARM E-1 self-loading rifle (shortened and fitted with a pistol-grip handle), a firearm magazine, and multiple .22 calibre cartridges. The offender had maintained throughout the trial that these items belonged to his partner rather than to him. The court rejected that defence.

  • At what level of objective seriousness did each offence fall, having regard to the quantity of drugs and the condition of the firearm?
  • How should Bugmy considerations (including the offender's background of deprivation and mental health difficulties) affect the weight given to personal deterrence and prospects of rehabilitation?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the standard non-parole period proportion.
  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, having regard to the totality principle and the offender's extensive criminal history?

Decision

Objective seriousness. On Count 1 (deemed supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine), the court accepted the Crown's submission that the offending fell just below mid-range. The quantity of 363.8 grams placed the offence between the commercial quantity threshold (250 grams) and the large commercial quantity threshold (500 grams), but closer to the lower end of that band. No evidence of actual supply was established at trial; the charge relied on the deemed supply provision under s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. On Count 6 (possession of the prohibited firearm), the court placed the offending above mid-range, noting that the weapon was real rather than a replica, was accompanied by compatible ammunition, and was capable of being discharged as a "slam-fire" despite its inoperable trigger mechanism.

Personal circumstances and Bugmy considerations. The court acknowledged the offender's background of significant disadvantage and mental health difficulties, giving these matters weight in accordance with the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571. However, the court assessed prospects of rehabilitation as moderate at best, given an extensive criminal history that included prior firearms offences. The court found that the Bugmy considerations provided only a slight reduction in the weight afforded to general deterrence, and that specific deterrence warranted more weight given the repeat firearms offending.

Special circumstances. The court found special circumstances on the bases of the risk of institutionalisation and the need for an extended period of post-release supervision. This justified a departure from the standard one-third additional term proportion.

Aggregate sentence. The court proceeded by way of an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Indicative individual sentences were set for each count. The three ammunition counts (Counts 2, 3, and 4) were disposed of by way of conviction without further penalty under s 10A. The aggregate sentence was set at a head sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, backdated to the date of arrest.

Orders Made

  • Count 1 (supply commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, including Form 1 matters): indicative sentence of 5 years, with an indicative non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.
  • Counts 2, 3 and 4 (possession of .22 calibre ammunition in contravention of a Firearms Prohibition Order): convicted; proceedings disposed of without further penalty under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Count 5 (possession of prohibited weapon magazine while subject to a Weapons Prohibition Order): indicative sentence of 6 months.
  • Count 6 (possession of prohibited firearm): indicative sentence of 4 years with an indicative non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months.
  • Sequence 6 (resist/hinder police, brought pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986): indicative sentence of 3 months, with approximately 10% discount for late guilty plea.
  • Aggregate sentence: head sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months, both backdated to 28 December 2022; non-parole period to expire 27 August 2027; additional term to expire 27 December 2029.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that where a quantity of methylamphetamine falls between the commercial and large commercial quantity thresholds under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, the precise position within that band is a material factor in calibrating objective seriousness, even where supply is deemed rather than proven.
  • A firearm rendered incapable of normal discharge but still operable as a "slam-fire" was assessed as above mid-range in objective seriousness when found in a public place alongside compatible ammunition, notwithstanding arguments about its modified and degraded condition.
  • Bugmy considerations arising from an offender's background of deprivation and mental health difficulties do not automatically produce a significant reduction in the weight given to general deterrence, particularly where the offending involves drug supply and firearms.
  • Special circumstances were established on the combined bases of institutionalisation risk and the need for extended post-release supervision, justifying a non-parole period proportion departing from the statutory norm.
  • Under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, an aggregate sentence requires the court to state indicative individual sentences, but the operative order is the aggregate head sentence and non-parole period taken as a whole.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10(1), 25(2), 29; Sch 1
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7(1), 74(3)
- Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 34(1)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 60(1AA)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5(1), 10A, 21A(2)(j), 53A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases
- R v Ahmad (No 1) [2024] NSWDC 676
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
- R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383
- R v Amurao [2005] NSWCCA 32
- R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43
- R v Campbell; R v Smith [2019] NSWCCA 1
- Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186
- Dawson (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 33
- Grills v R [2016] NSWCCA 46
- Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
- Leffley v R [2016] NSWCCA 243
- Luu v R [2008] NSWCCA 285
- R v Mehcur [2002] NSWCCA 56
- R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
- SY v R [2020