FESTUS -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 25
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 25 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:69/2001 | 6 DECEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J WHITE AUJ | 18/02/02 | |
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PRECIOUS IYOHA FESTUS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Conviction following plea of guilty not on the fast-track system Whether adequate discount allowed for that plea and for a late offer to co-operate with the authorities Applicant's offer of co-operation of negligible value |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c) Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(1) |
Case References: | Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 McKeagg v The Queen [2001] WASCA 99 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31 Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Heryadi (1998) 98 A Crim R 578 Ma v The Queen [2001] WASCA 325 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Carey (1997) 97 A Crim R 552 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Perrier (No 2) (1991) VR 717 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473 Voong v The Queen [2000] WASCA 220 X v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : FESTUS -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 25 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
WHITE AUJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Conviction following plea of guilty not on the fast-track system - Whether adequate discount allowed for that plea and for a late offer to co-operate with the authorities - Applicant's offer of co-operation of negligible value
Legislation:
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c)
Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(1)
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms K Farley
Respondent : Mr G J Allen
Solicitors:
Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87
McKeagg v The Queen [2001] WASCA 99
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995
Case(s) also cited:
Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31
Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
Heryadi (1998) 98 A Crim R 578
Ma v The Queen [2001] WASCA 325
Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210
R v Carey (1997) 97 A Crim R 552
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v…
Continue reading Festus v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Festus v The Queen [2002] WASCA 25
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Festus appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge did not adequately consider the discount he was entitled to for pleading guilty and for his late offer to cooperate with the authorities. The applicant claimed that his offer of cooperation was of negligible value. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had appropriately assessed the discount that the applicant was entitled to for his guilty plea and for his offer to cooperate with the authorities, particularly considering the lateness of that offer. The court was required to determine if the discount applied was sufficient and if the applicant's offer of cooperation was indeed negligible in value.
The court found that the trial judge had considered the relevant factors and appropriately applied the discount. The trial judge had acknowledged the applicant's guilty plea and the late offer of cooperation, but also noted the negligible value of that offer. The court held that the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in sentencing the applicant. The High Court upheld the trial judge's assessment, finding that there was no error in the application of the discount for the guilty plea and the negligible value of the late offer of cooperation. Consequently, the court found that the appeal against the sentence did not succeed.
In light of the above, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The court's decision was final, and no further appeals could be made regarding the sentence imposed on the applicant.
The court found that the trial judge had considered the relevant factors and appropriately applied the discount. The trial judge had acknowledged the applicant's guilty plea and the late offer of cooperation, but also noted the negligible value of that offer. The court held that the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in sentencing the applicant. The High Court upheld the trial judge's assessment, finding that there was no error in the application of the discount for the guilty plea and the negligible value of the late offer of cooperation. Consequently, the court found that the appeal against the sentence did not succeed.
In light of the above, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The court's decision was final, and no further appeals could be made regarding the sentence imposed on the applicant.
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.