EVANS -v- R [1999] WASCA 195

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 195
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:153/1998	Heard:	8 JUNE 1999
Coram:	PIDGEON J ANDERSON J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	11/10/99
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave granted but appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	GARRY JOHN EVANS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal Law and Procedure Sentencing Parity Comparison between a seller and purchaser of an illicit drug Held offenders not in the position where the sentences demanded comparison
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 Postiglione v R (1996) 189 CLR 295 R v Tiddy (1969) SASR 575 Allen v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950215; 27 April 1995 Australian Coal v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Bellissimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Caritativo v R; Fisher v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970033; 10 February 1997 Darwell v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Hanna v R (1994) 15 Cr App Rep(S) 44 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Koushappis v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950729; 6 December 1995 Leonard v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990152; 29 March 1999 Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606 R v Bozo Jurkovich (FFC) (1981) 6 A Crim R 215 R v Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R 353 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Vodanovic v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960056; 9 February 1996 Vuckov and Romeo (1986) 22 A Crim R 10 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : EVANS -v- R [1999] WASCA 195 CORAM : PIDGEON J

ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 8 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 11 OCTOBER 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 153 of 1998 BETWEEN : GARRY JOHN EVANS

Applicant (Defendant)

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent (Complainant)

Catchwords:

Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentencing - Parity - Comparison between a seller and purchaser of an illicit drug - Held offenders not in the position where the sentences demanded comparison

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave granted but appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant (Defendant) : Ms H E Prince

Respondent (Complainant) : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms V R Campbell

Solicitors:

Applicant (Defendant) : Chilvers Marshall

Respondent (Complainant) : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v R (1996) 189 CLR 295
R v Tiddy (1969) SASR 575

Case(s) also cited:

Allen v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950215; 27 April 1995
Australian Coal v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Bellissimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Caritativo v R; Fisher v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970033; 10 February 1997
Darwell v R (1997) 94 A…

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 Evans v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Evans v The Queen [1999] WASCA 195
Case: [1999] WASCA 195
Decision Date: 11 OCTOBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Evans v The Queen involved the appellant, Evans, who had been convicted for his involvement in a drug trafficking operation. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Evans' appeal was against the sentence handed down to him by the court of appeal, which had upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed on Evans and a co-offender, who was a purchaser of the drugs, were appropriate given the principles of parity in sentencing. The court needed to consider whether the role and culpability of the appellant warranted a different sentence from that imposed on the co-offender.

The court examined the roles of both parties in the drug transaction and the principles of sentencing that should be applied in such cases. It was noted that while both parties were involved in the drug offence, their roles were distinct. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the respective roles and culpability of the parties and that there was no requirement for the sentences to be compared directly. The appeal court had rightly concluded that the appellant's sentence was proportionate to his involvement and culpability. The court also found that the appellant's appeal did not raise any substantial miscarriage of justice warranting the granting of special leave.

In light of the above, the High Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The court found no error in the sentencing process that would warrant altering the sentence imposed on Evans. The roles and culpability of the appellant, as determined by the lower courts, were upheld, and no miscarriage of justice was identified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was maintained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave granted but 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.