ANGELESKI -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 209
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 209 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:210/2002 | 5 AUGUST 2003 | |
| Coram: | ANDERSON J STEYTLER J MILLER J | 5/09/03 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted, Appeal allowed, Sentence of 12 years' imprisonment reduced to 9 years' imprisonment with , eligibility for parole | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PECO ANGELESKI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Three counts of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply One count of supplying methylamphetamine to another Whether irrelevant matters taken into consideration Whether sentence manifestly excessive Whether sentencing Judge erred in not considering matters personal to applicant and plea of guilty Parity principle Total sentence reduced from 12 years' imprisonment to 9 years' imprisonment Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25, s 33 Misuse of Drugs Act 1985 (WA), s 6(1), s 7(1) |
Case References: | Dodd v The Queen [2002] WASCA 55 Goddard v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 541 Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Marker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 282 Miller v The Queen [1999] WASCA 66 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Benais [1999] NSWCCA 236 R v Bimahendali (1999) 109 A Crim R 355 R v Bushell, unreported; NSWCCA; 7 August 1998 R v Capper [2000] NSWCCA 63 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Dizel, unreported; NSWCCA; 23 August 1996 R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295 R v Hafner [2002] WASCA 211 R v Ma (2001) 125 A Crim R 349 R v Nai Poon [2003] NSWCCA 42 R v Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R 353 R v Schmakowski [2001] NSWCCA 395 R v Schofield [2003] NSWCCA 3 R v Spillane [1999] NSWCCA 280 R v Tiddy [1969] SASR 575 R v Wilson (2000) 116 A Crim R 90 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 Abela v The Queen [2002] WASCA 279 Aconi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 211 Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305 Cameron v The Queen [2000] WASCA 286 Fazari v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960651A; 14 November 1996 Kezkiropoulos v The Queen [2002] WASCA 352 Leonard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990152; 29 March 1999 Moulds v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980147; 4 March 1998 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417 R v Brindley (1993) 66 A Crim R 204 R v Krakouer (1999) 107 A Crim R 408 R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Ritter [2000] VSCA 135 R v Tien & Ors [1998] VSCA… |
Continue reading Angeleski v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Angeleski v The Queen [2003] WASCA 209
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 209
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Angeleski v The Queen concerned an appeal against sentence by the applicant, who was convicted on three counts of possessing methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply and one count of supplying methylamphetamine to another. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that irrelevant matters were taken into account, and that the sentencing judge failed to consider personal matters and the applicant's plea of guilty. The applicant also raised issues concerning the parity principle.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive, whether irrelevant matters were taken into account in determining the sentence, and whether the sentencing judge erred in not considering matters personal to the applicant and the plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the sentence imposed was in accordance with the parity principle.
In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and reduced the sentence from 12 years' imprisonment to 9 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole. The Court of Appeal found that irrelevant matters were taken into account by the sentencing judge in determining the sentence, and that the sentencing judge erred in not considering matters personal to the applicant and the plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal also held that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with the parity principle. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced from 12 years' imprisonment to 9 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive, whether irrelevant matters were taken into account in determining the sentence, and whether the sentencing judge erred in not considering matters personal to the applicant and the plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the sentence imposed was in accordance with the parity principle.
In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and reduced the sentence from 12 years' imprisonment to 9 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole. The Court of Appeal found that irrelevant matters were taken into account by the sentencing judge in determining the sentence, and that the sentencing judge erred in not considering matters personal to the applicant and the plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal also held that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with the parity principle. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced from 12 years' imprisonment to 9 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted, Appeal allowed, Sentence of 12 years' imprisonment reduced to 9 years' imprisonment with , eligibility for parole
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.