CITA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 5
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 5 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 24/01/2001 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:129/2000 | 13 NOVEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ OWEN J PARKER J | 13/11/00 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WIRA CITA THE QUEEN TARJUDDIN LAMAHA |
Catchwords: | Criminal Law Sentence Offences of facilitating the bringing to Australia of unauthorised persons Skippers of Indonesian vessels carrying 282 and 180 unlawful non-citizens Sentences of 7 years imprisonment and 5 years 6 months imprisonment upheld |
Legislation: | Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 232A |
Case References: | House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Abbott (1985) 17 A Crim R 355 Akimin & Ors v Cooper, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950071; 24 February 1995 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1956) 94 CLR 621 De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996 Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54 Gavin v R (1992) 6 WAR 195 Ilam v Dando (1999) A Crim R 47 Knights (1993) 70 A Crim R 105 R v Downie & Dandy (1997) 95 A Crim R 299 R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 R v Samsul Guruapin, unreported; SCt of NT; 22 November 1999 R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Udin Nursia & Ors, unreported; SCt of NT; 12 January 2000 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 Winchester v R (1992) 58 A Crim R 345 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CITA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 5 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- OWEN J
PARKER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal Law - Sentence - Offences of facilitating the bringing to Australia of unauthorised persons - Skippers of Indonesian vessels carrying 282 and 180 unlawful non-citizens - Sentences of 7 years imprisonment and 5 years 6 months imprisonment upheld
Legislation:
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 232A
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Representation:
CCA 129 of 2000
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr A E Monisse
Respondent : Mr J McGrath
Solicitors:
Applicant : Legal Aid Commission
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
CCA 149 of 2000
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr A E Monisse
Respondent : Mr J McGrath
Solicitors:
Applicant : Legal Aid Commission
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen…
Continue reading Cita v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cita v The Queen [2001] WASCA 5
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cita v The Queen involved two appellants, Cita and another individual, who were convicted for their roles in facilitating the bringing to Australia of unauthorised persons. Both were skippers of Indonesian vessels, one carrying 282 unlawful non-citizens and the other 180. The appeal against their sentences was heard by the High Court of Australia. Cita received a sentence of 7 years imprisonment while the other appellant received a sentence of 5 years 6 months imprisonment.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge correctly assessed the appellants' conduct and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate. The court had to consider the appellants' roles in the smuggling operations, the severity of their offences, and whether the sentences were commensurate with the crimes committed. The appellants argued that the sentences were excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors, such as their limited role and potential coercion.
The High Court held that the primary judge had correctly assessed the appellants' conduct and imposed appropriate sentences. The court found that while the appellants' roles were significant, they were not the masterminds of the operations. However, their participation in facilitating the entry of large numbers of unauthorised non-citizens into Australia was a serious breach of the law. The court emphasised the need to deter such activities and ensure sentences reflect the gravity of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences were upheld.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge correctly assessed the appellants' conduct and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate. The court had to consider the appellants' roles in the smuggling operations, the severity of their offences, and whether the sentences were commensurate with the crimes committed. The appellants argued that the sentences were excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors, such as their limited role and potential coercion.
The High Court held that the primary judge had correctly assessed the appellants' conduct and imposed appropriate sentences. The court found that while the appellants' roles were significant, they were not the masterminds of the operations. However, their participation in facilitating the entry of large numbers of unauthorised non-citizens into Australia was a serious breach of the law. The court emphasised the need to deter such activities and ensure sentences reflect the gravity of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences were upheld.
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.