BARANY -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 240
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 240 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:47/2000 | 8 JUNE 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY ACJ WALLWORK J PARKER J | 31/08/00 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CATHERINE JEANNE CAROLINE BARANY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Appeal Importation of 'ecstasy' (MDMA) Discount for assistance to investigating authorities Effectiveness of assistance to authorities relevant |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Malvaso v R (1989) 168 CLR 227 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Nagy [1992] 1 VR 637 Hayes v R (1981) WAR 252 Heryadi v The Queen (1998)19 WAR 383 La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 Lim v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456 R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 R v Foster & D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141 R v Tait & Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BARANY -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 240 CORAM : KENNEDY ACJ
- WALLWORK J
PARKER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Appeal - Importation of 'ecstasy' (MDMA) - Discount for assistance to investigating authorities - Effectiveness of assistance to authorities relevant
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M L Tudori
Respondent : Mr H G Dembo & Ms N L Cave
Solicitors:
Applicant : Michael Tudori
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Malvaso v R (1989) 168 CLR 227
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Nagy [1992] 1 VR 637
Case(s) also cited:
Hayes v R (1981) WAR 252
Heryadi v The Queen (1998)19 WAR 383
La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996
Lim v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
R v Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
R v Foster & D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14
R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
R v…
Continue reading Barany v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Barany v The Queen [2000] WASCA 240
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 240
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Barany v The Queen, the defendant, Barany, appealed against his sentence for the importation of ecstasy (MDMA) into Australia. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Barany argued that the trial judge had erred in not applying a discount to his sentence on the basis of his assistance to the investigating authorities.
The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in law in not applying a discount to the defendant's sentence for his assistance to the authorities. The court had to determine the effectiveness of the defendant's assistance in order to determine if it warranted a discount. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge was correct in concluding that the assistance was not significant enough to warrant a discount.
The court held that the trial judge was correct in not applying a discount to the defendant's sentence. The court found that the defendant's assistance to the authorities was not significant enough to warrant a discount. The court found that the defendant had not provided any significant information that assisted the authorities in apprehending other offenders or in preventing the importation of drugs into Australia. The court held that the effectiveness of the defendant's assistance was relevant to the determination of whether a discount should be applied. The court held that the trial judge was not incorrect in concluding that the defendant's assistance was not significant enough to warrant a discount.
The court refused leave to appeal against the sentence. The defendant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed.
The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in law in not applying a discount to the defendant's sentence for his assistance to the authorities. The court had to determine the effectiveness of the defendant's assistance in order to determine if it warranted a discount. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge was correct in concluding that the assistance was not significant enough to warrant a discount.
The court held that the trial judge was correct in not applying a discount to the defendant's sentence. The court found that the defendant's assistance to the authorities was not significant enough to warrant a discount. The court found that the defendant had not provided any significant information that assisted the authorities in apprehending other offenders or in preventing the importation of drugs into Australia. The court held that the effectiveness of the defendant's assistance was relevant to the determination of whether a discount should be applied. The court held that the trial judge was not incorrect in concluding that the defendant's assistance was not significant enough to warrant a discount.
The court refused leave to appeal against the sentence. The defendant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
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.