McLURE P: In each appeal there is an application for leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, to appeal against sentence. The appellants, Mr Burton and Mr Fielding, were convicted on their fast‑track pleas of guilty of two counts of possession of a prohibited drug (MDMA) with intent to sell or supply. Count 1 involved 1,000 ecstasy tablets weighing 243.89 g of approximately 5% purity. Count 2 involved 2,554 ecstasy tablets weighing 623.22 g of approximately 5% purity.
On 9 July 2010 Wisbey DCJ sentenced the appellants to 2 years 6 months' imprisonment on count 1 and 3 years' imprisonment on count 2. He ordered the sentences to be served cumulatively resulting in a total sentence of 5 years 6 months' imprisonment.
The appellants rely on two grounds of appeal. First they claim the total sentence breaches both limbs of the totality principle and secondly that the sentencing judge erred in ordering…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Brockway v Pando
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Brockway v Pando [2010] WASCA 192
Case
[2010] WASCA 192
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Brockway v Pando, the respondent was convicted for possession of MDMA with intent to sell or supply. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent's crime. The appellant, Brockway, argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and not reflective of the totality of the respondent's circumstances.
The central issue before the court was the appropriate application of the principle of totality in sentencing. The principle of totality requires that all relevant circumstances of a case be considered when determining an appropriate sentence, including any mitigating factors. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed by the lower court adequately took into account the totality of the respondent's circumstances, including his background and personal circumstances.
The court held that the lower court had erred in not adequately considering the principle of totality in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was excessive and did not reflect the totality of the respondent's circumstances. The court noted that the respondent had no prior criminal history and had been involved in the drug supply for a relatively short period of time. The court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had cooperated with authorities. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not appropriate and ordered that the matter be remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the totality of a defendant's circumstances when imposing a sentence. The court's focus on the respondent's background, personal circumstances, and cooperation with authorities demonstrates the need for a balanced and nuanced approach to sentencing. The court's decision also serves as a reminder to lower courts of the need to carefully consider all relevant factors when imposing a sentence.