COLLIER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 69

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 69
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:190/2000	Heard:	3 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J MILLER J	Delivered:	14/03/01
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CHERELLE LOUISE COLLIER THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Possession of 171 grams of methylamphetamine of 28 per cent purity Applicant claiming to have been conveying drug left at her house to a place where it could be buried Claim that she intended to give the drug back to the person who had left it at her house or to tell him where it could be recovered Person who left the drug not identified Sentence of 6 years' imprisonment not set aside as excessive
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Atholwood v The Queen [2000] WASCA 76 La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 Lang v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940484; 6 September 1994 Miller v The Queen [1999] WASCA 66 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Bellisimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Heferen (1999) 106 A Crim R 89 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144 Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 63

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : COLLIER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 69 CORAM : KENNEDY J

WALLWORK J

MILLER J

HEARD : 3 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 14 MARCH 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 190 of 2000 BETWEEN : CHERELLE LOUISE COLLIER

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Possession of 171 grams of methylamphetamine of 28 per cent purity - Applicant claiming to have been conveying drug left at her house to a place where it could be buried - Claim that she intended to give the drug back to the person who had left it at her house or to tell him where it could be recovered - Person who left the drug not identified - Sentence of 6 years' imprisonment not set aside as excessive

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr M R Gunning

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35

Case(s) also cited:

Atholwood v The Queen [2000] WASCA 76
La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996
Lang v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt…

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 Collier v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Collier v The Queen [2001] WASCA 69
Case: [2001] WASCA 69
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Collier v The Queen involved the sentencing of an individual found in possession of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine. The applicant, Collier, was found with 171 grams of the drug, which had a purity of 28%. The case was heard in the relevant Australian appellate court, where the primary issue was whether the sentence of six years' imprisonment was excessive given the applicant's claim that she was merely conveying the drug to a place where it could be buried, intending to either return it to the person who had left it at her house or inform them of its location. The identity of the person who left the drug at her house remained unknown.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the relevant sentencing principles, the credibility of the applicant's explanation, and the appropriate weight to give to the quantity and purity of the drug in determining the sentence. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offence against the applicant's assertion of innocence and the potential for rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented and determined that the sentence was not excessive. The court found that the quantity and purity of the drug indicated a significant involvement in drug trafficking, outweighing the applicant's claim of innocence and intent to merely convey the drug. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for such an offence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed, maintaining the original sentence of six years' imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.