DE JESUS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 128

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 128
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:122/1999	Heard:	4 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MURRAY J	Delivered:	12/05/00
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	MANUEL FILISBERTO DE JESUS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Allowance for time spent in custody before sentence The offence of possession of heroin with intent 8 years imprisonment upheld Eligibility for parole considered
Legislation:	Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 87
Case References:	El-Ali v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library 940506; 14 September 1994 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Palmer v The Queen [1999] WASCA 253 R v Jones, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970210; 7 May 1997 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31 R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : DE JESUS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 128 CORAM : PIDGEON J

WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

HEARD : 4 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 12 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 122 of 1999 BETWEEN : MANUEL FILISBERTO DE JESUS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Allowance for time spent in custody before sentence - The offence of possession of heroin with intent - 8 years imprisonment upheld - Eligibility for parole considered

Legislation:

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 87

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R W Cannon

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

El-Ali v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library 940506; 14 September 1994
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Palmer v The Queen [1999] WASCA 253
R v Jones, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970210; 7 May 1997
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996
Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210
R v Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31
R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

(Page 3)

1 PIDGEON J: I agree with the reasons of Murray J. I would for these reasons refuse leave to appeal.

2 WALLWORK J: On 25 May…

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 De Jesus v The Queen

Details

AGLC: De Jesus v The Queen [2000] WASCA 128
Case: [2000] WASCA 128
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of De Jesus v The Queen addressed the sentencing of the appellant, who had been found guilty of possession of heroin with intent. The central issue in this appeal was whether the lower court had erred in its calculation of the time the appellant should serve before being eligible for parole. The appellant argued that he should receive credit for the time he had already spent in custody prior to being sentenced. The Crown, represented by the Queen, contended that the lower court had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles and that no additional credit was warranted.

The court considered whether the lower court had appropriately exercised its discretion in determining the appropriate sentence and whether the calculation of time spent in custody was accurate. The High Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain whether the lower court had misapplied any legal principles. The court noted that the appellant had already spent a significant period in custody, but ultimately determined that the lower court had correctly calculated the sentence, taking into account all relevant factors.

The High Court held that the lower court had not erred in its calculation of the sentence and the time spent in custody. The court found that the appellant's arguments did not establish any misapplication of the relevant legal principles, and the sentence and parole eligibility were correctly determined. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the 8-year imprisonment sentence as calculated by the lower court.

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.