CHRISTIANOS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 184
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 184 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:200/1999 | 3 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J WALLWORK J | 27/07/00 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CHRISTOS CHRISTIANOS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing One count of conspiring to cultivate cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another, one charge of escaping legal custody Sentence of 7 years in relation to conspiracy and 9 months in relation to escaping legal custody, to be served cumulatively Co-conspirator sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment Whether requirement for parity Whether sentences otherwise excessive |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 33, s 34 |
Case References: | Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Cox (1996) 66 SASR 152 R v Knight (1986) 40 SASR 479 R v Olbrich (1999) 73 ALJR 1550 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 R v Storey[1998] 1 VR 359 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Delaney v Van Arkel, unreported; SCt of WA (Steytler J); Library No 950176; 13 April 1995 Douglas v Power, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 940035; 27 January 1994 Ficara v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930529; 30 September 1993 Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281 Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v Williams, unreported; SCt of WA (Rowland J); Library No 920652; 7 December 1992 Krakouer v Durka, unreported; SCt of WA (Miller J); Library No 980595; 14 October 1998 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Nicoletti v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970578; 4 November 1997 Pizzata v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930596; 29 October 1993 R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397 R v Raptis (1988) 36 A Crim R 362 R v Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 R v Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 R v Vasich (1998) 99 A Crim R 262 R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Scaffidi v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970166; 18 April 1997 Siganto v R (1998) 159 ALR 94 Taylor v Kenny, unreported; SCt of WA (White J); Library No 950247; 23 May 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CHRISTIANOS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 184 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
Continue reading Christianos v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Christianos v The Queen [2000] WASCA 184
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 184
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant, Christianos, appealed against his sentence for conspiring to cultivate cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another person, as well as for escaping legal custody. The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a requirement for parity between the sentences of co-conspirators, and if the sentences imposed were otherwise excessive. Christianos argued that the disparity in his sentence compared to his co-conspirator's sentence of 5 years for the same offences was unjust, and that the cumulative sentences of 7 years for the conspiracy and 9 months for escaping legal custody were excessive.
The court considered the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that co-conspirators receive similar sentences unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a difference. However, the court found that there were no such circumstances in this case. The court also examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, Christianos's role in them, and the need for deterrence and retribution. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentences were not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.
The court considered the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that co-conspirators receive similar sentences unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a difference. However, the court found that there were no such circumstances in this case. The court also examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, Christianos's role in them, and the need for deterrence and retribution. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentences were not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
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.