BRADY -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 154
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 154 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:248/2002 | 22 MAY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J WHEELER J HASLUCK J | 18/07/03 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave granted Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RODERICK PETER BRADY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Manufacture of methylamphetamine Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply Conviction on late plea of guilty to both counts Cumulative sentence of 91/2 years Totality principle "One transaction" Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Pallister [2002] WASCA 68 R v White [2002] WASCA 112 Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296 Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BRADY -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 154 CORAM : MURRAY J
- WHEELER J
HASLUCK J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Manufacture of methylamphetamine - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Conviction on late plea of guilty to both counts - Cumulative sentence of 91/2 years - Totality principle - "One transaction" - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave granted
Appeal allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr B G Illari
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Applicant : Bruno Illari
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Pallister [2002] WASCA 68
R v White [2002] WASCA 112
Case(s) also cited:
Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296
Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303
(Page 3)
1 MURRAY J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for decision published by Wheeler J. I agree that the applicant should be granted leave to appeal and that the appeal should be allowed. I would vary the sentences as proposed by Wheeler J to achieve an aggregate term of 6 years imprisonment. The only change required would be to delete the order for the cumulative service of the sentence of 3 ½ years imprisonment imposed for the offence of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply.
2 As to her Honour's reasons…
Continue reading Brady v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Brady v The Queen [2003] WASCA 154
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Brady was charged with the manufacture of methylamphetamine and the possession of the same substance with intent to sell or supply. He entered a late guilty plea to both counts, resulting in a cumulative sentence of nine and a half years. The appeal was directed to the cumulative sentence, arguing that the totality principle and the "one transaction" concept warranted a lesser sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether the principles of totality and the "one transaction" concept had been properly applied.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of totality and the "one transaction" concept. The appellant argued that the cumulative sentence of nine and a half years was manifestly excessive, as it did not take into account the totality of the offending and failed to recognise the offending as a single, continuous transaction. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles.
The High Court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered the totality of the offending, nor had he properly applied the "one transaction" concept. The court emphasised that the totality principle requires the sentence to reflect the overall criminality of the offending, taking into account the cumulative impact of multiple offences. The "one transaction" concept, meanwhile, recognises that where multiple offences are part of a single, continuous course of conduct, they should be treated as a single transaction for sentencing purposes. In this case, the court found that the offending constituted a single, continuous transaction, and thus the sentence should have reflected this. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence, remitting the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing.
The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed by the trial court, and remit the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with the principles outlined by the High Court.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of totality and the "one transaction" concept. The appellant argued that the cumulative sentence of nine and a half years was manifestly excessive, as it did not take into account the totality of the offending and failed to recognise the offending as a single, continuous transaction. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles.
The High Court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered the totality of the offending, nor had he properly applied the "one transaction" concept. The court emphasised that the totality principle requires the sentence to reflect the overall criminality of the offending, taking into account the cumulative impact of multiple offences. The "one transaction" concept, meanwhile, recognises that where multiple offences are part of a single, continuous course of conduct, they should be treated as a single transaction for sentencing purposes. In this case, the court found that the offending constituted a single, continuous transaction, and thus the sentence should have reflected this. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence, remitting the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing.
The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed by the trial court, and remit the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with the principles outlined by the High Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave granted
Appeal allowed
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.