DE BONDE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 251
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 251 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:56/2002 | 20 AUGUST 2002 | |
| Coram: | PARKER J HASLUCK J FITZGERALD AJ | 6/09/02 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DARREN SHANE DE BONDE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Importing a quantity of "Ecstasy" in excess of the trafficable quantity Plea of guilty Quantity imported less than quantities imported by associates Parity Whether sufficient allowance made for lesser quantity A sentence of imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months held to be not excessive |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901, s 233B(1)(b), Sch 6, s 235 |
Case References: | Nil Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Boxtel v The Queen [1994] 2 VR 98 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65 Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Diefenbach (1999) 108 A Crim R 19 R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 R v Foster & D'anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 R v King [1979] VR 399 R v Laurentiu & Becheru (1992) 63 A Crim R 402 R v Lewis (1984) 13 A Crim R 63 R v Nardozzi (1994) 74 A Crim R 319 R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Radebe v The Queen (2001) 162 FLR 313 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467 Wale v The Queen [2001] WASCA 418 Wong v The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 233 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : DE BONDE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 251 CORAM : PARKER J
- HASLUCK J
FITZGERALD AJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Importing a quantity of "Ecstasy" in excess of the trafficable quantity - Plea of guilty - Quantity imported less than quantities imported by associates - Parity - Whether sufficient allowance made for lesser quantity - A sentence of imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months held to be not excessive
Legislation:
Customs Act 1901, s 233B(1)(b), Sch 6, s 235
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr J McGrath
Respondent : Mr H G Dembo
Solicitors:
Applicant : Maughan & Leach
Respondent…
Continue reading De Bonde v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- De Bonde v The Queen [2002] WASCA 251
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of Australia, the matter of De Bonde v The Queen was heard and determined. The appellant, De Bonde, had pleaded guilty to importing a quantity of "Ecstasy" in excess of the trafficable quantity. The primary dispute in this case was the determination of the appropriate sentence for De Bonde, particularly considering his plea of guilty and the lesser quantity of drugs imported compared to his associates.
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether sufficient allowance had been made for the lesser quantity of drugs imported by De Bonde relative to his associates. The court also needed to consider the principle of parity in sentencing and whether the sentence of imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months was appropriate.
In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented regarding the lesser quantity of drugs imported by De Bonde compared to his associates. The court acknowledged that while De Bonde was guilty of a serious offence, there were mitigating factors such as his lesser involvement in the importation of drugs. The court held that the sentence was not excessive, considering all the circumstances, including the principle of parity in sentencing. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the sentence stood as determined by the lower court.
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether sufficient allowance had been made for the lesser quantity of drugs imported by De Bonde relative to his associates. The court also needed to consider the principle of parity in sentencing and whether the sentence of imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months was appropriate.
In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented regarding the lesser quantity of drugs imported by De Bonde compared to his associates. The court acknowledged that while De Bonde was guilty of a serious offence, there were mitigating factors such as his lesser involvement in the importation of drugs. The court held that the sentence was not excessive, considering all the circumstances, including the principle of parity in sentencing. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the sentence stood as determined by the lower court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for 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.