ATHOLWOOD -v- R [1999] WASCA 256
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 256 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 15/11/1999 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:66/1999 | 21 JULY 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J WALLWORK J | 21/07/99 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowedSentence reduced | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID JAMES ATHOLWOOD THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal Sentence Cultivating cannabis with intent 42 plants Prosecution accepted that appellant played limited role Other charges against him withdrawn Then he pleaded guilty Entitled to greater discount for guilty plea than allowed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Kennedy v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 4 April 1998 R v Bulger [1990] Qd R 559 R v Doyle (1994) 71 A Crim R 360 R v Gray [1977] VR 225 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Simpson v The Queen (1993) 68 Crim R 439 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Fazari v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960651; 14 November 1996 Gilbert v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920164; 27 March 1992 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Langridge v R (1996) 17 WAR 346; (1996) 87 A Crim R 1 Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518 Pizzata v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930596; 29 October 1993 Poole v R [1999] WASCA 46 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Jankovic (1995) 81 A Crim R 14 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Loughnan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA: Library No 4966; 23 June 1983 R v Marchesano (1992) 61 A Crim R 137 R v Phillips, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5038; 19 August 1983 R v Stol (1989) 44 A Crim R 137 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Yanko, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960030; 23 January 1996 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ATHOLWOOD -v- R [1999] WASCA 256 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
WALLWORK J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal - Sentence - Cultivating cannabis with intent - 42 plants - Prosecution accepted that appellant played limited role - Other charges against him withdrawn - Then he pleaded guilty - Entitled to greater discount for guilty plea than allowed
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Sentence reduced
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R Richter QC
Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Ms T R Watt
Solicitors:
Appellant : Pryles & Defteros
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Kennedy v R, unreported; CCA SCt…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Atholwood v The Queen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 256
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Atholwood, appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge. Atholwood was convicted of cultivating cannabis with intent, following the discovery of 42 plants in his possession. The prosecution accepted that Atholwood played a limited role in the cultivation. Other charges against him were withdrawn, and Atholwood then pleaded guilty. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with Atholwood contending that he was entitled to a greater discount for his early guilty plea than was allowed by the trial judge.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether Atholwood was entitled to a greater discount for his guilty plea. The court considered the totality principle, which required it to consider the overall punishment and ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offending. The court also needed to assess the impact of the appellant's limited role in the offending on the appropriate sentence.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was too severe and did not adequately reflect Atholwood's limited role in the offending. The court accepted that Atholwood was entitled to a greater discount for his early guilty plea than was allowed by the trial judge. The court accepted that the totality principle required the sentence to be proportionate to the offending, and that Atholwood's limited role should have been given greater weight in determining the appropriate sentence. The court reduced the sentence and allowed the appeal.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether Atholwood was entitled to a greater discount for his guilty plea. The court considered the totality principle, which required it to consider the overall punishment and ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offending. The court also needed to assess the impact of the appellant's limited role in the offending on the appropriate sentence.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was too severe and did not adequately reflect Atholwood's limited role in the offending. The court accepted that Atholwood was entitled to a greater discount for his early guilty plea than was allowed by the trial judge. The court accepted that the totality principle required the sentence to be proportionate to the offending, and that Atholwood's limited role should have been given greater weight in determining the appropriate sentence. The court reduced the sentence and allowed the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowedSentence reduced
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.