Chick v The Queen - [2000] WASCA 231

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: CHICK -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 231

CORAM: PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J

HEARD: 13 JULY 2000

DELIVERED : 30 AUGUST 2000

FILE NO/S: CCA 19 of 2000
CCA 56 of 2000

BETWEEN: ANTONIOS PETER CHICK
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offences - Possession with intent to sell or supply - Meaning of supply - Manisco defence - Direction to jury

Sentence - Appeal against - Judicial discretion in sentencing - Totality principle - Six counts of possession with intent to sell or supply, three counts of simple possession, one count of cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply - Aggregate sentence of 11 years not excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
Appeal against sentence dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr M J Bowden
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Appellant: Cannon Bowden & Co
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Atholwood v The Queen [2000] WASCA 76
Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
Furness v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950236; 17 May 1995
Geary & Kyros v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930060; 3 February 1993
Manisco (1995) 79 A Crim R 213
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144
Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R 353

Case(s) also cited:

Caritativo & Fisher v The Queen, unreported, CCA SCt of WA, Library No 970033; 10 February 1997
Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273

PIDGEON J: I have read in draft the reasons to be published by Anderson J. I agree with those reasons and the orders proposed.
WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Anderson J and to the orders proposed by his Honour.
ANDERSON J: On 18 January of this year the appellant was presented in the District Court on an indictment containing 11 counts alleging drug offences. Ten of the counts alleged possession with intent to sell or supply and one count alleged cultivation of a quantity of cannabis plants with intent to sell or supply. As to the counts alleging possession with intent, two related to the possession of cannabis plant material, one related to the possession of LSD, two related to the possession of methylamphetamine, two related to the possession of amphetamine, two related to possession of ephedrine and one related to possession of liquid cannabis extract. After a trial lasting five days, the appellant was found guilty of six counts of possession with intent and three counts of simple possession. He was also found guilty of the count alleging cultivation of cannabis plants with intent. There had been a directed acquittal on the count involving liquid cannabis extract. In respect…

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 Chick v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chick v The Queen [2000] WASCA 231
Case: [2000] WASCA 231
Decision Date: 30 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chick v The Queen, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria for multiple drug-related offences. Chick was found guilty of six counts of possession with intent to sell or supply a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, three counts of simple possession, and one count of cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply. The aggregate sentence imposed was 11 years imprisonment, which Chick appealed on the grounds of excessiveness.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of the term "supply" as it applies to drug offences, the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the Manisco defence, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. Specifically, Chick argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to the defence of Manisco, which pertains to whether the accused had the capacity to exercise control over the drugs. Furthermore, Chick contended that the sentence was excessive and failed to consider the totality principle, which requires the court to ensure that the cumulative penalty does not exceed what is necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing.

The Court of Appeal considered these issues and concluded that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury regarding the Manisco defence, as the directions were consistent with relevant legal principles. The court also determined that the sentence was not excessive, as it was necessary to achieve the purposes of deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the community. The totality principle was properly applied, and the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences committed by Chick. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. The aggregate sentence of 11 years imprisonment was deemed appropriate and not excessive, taking into account the totality principle and the objectives of sentencing.

Orders