FOO -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 406
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 406 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:98/2001 | 19 NOVEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J PARKER J OLSSON AUJ | 13/12/01 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Leave to appeal against sentence granted Sentence of 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years 6 months substituted | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KOK JUAN FOO THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Accomplice direction Whether adequate Criminal law Sentence Possession of prohibited import Commercial quantity of heroin Whether sentence of 21 years imprisonment excessive Aggravating circumstance of two previous like offences Sentence reduced to 17 years imprisonment with non-parole period of 9 years 6 months. |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(ca), s 235(2)(c) |
Case References: | Browne v Dunne (1894) 6 R 67 Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378 Doggett v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1290 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kelleher v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 534 Khan v The Queen [1971] WAR 44 Leeth v The Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 Medina v The Queen (1990) 108 FLR 288 Miller v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; 23 December 1987 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 R v Foster and D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 R v Kendrick (1997) 2 VR 699 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Wong (1999) 108 A Crim R 531 Serrette v The Queen [2000] WASCA 405 Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1 Voong v The Queen [2000] WASCA 220 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64 Wong v The Queen [2001] WASCA 32 Asciak v The Queen [1990] WAR 120 Chew v The Queen (1991) 4 WAR 21 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Foo v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 2434; 2 October 1978 Kook v The Queen [2001] NSWCCA 122 Krakouer v The Queen (1996) 16 WAR 1 Markovina v The Queen (1996) 16 WAR 354 R v Ah Hock Yeo [1995] QSCA 182 R v Barrientos [1999] NSWCCA 1 R v Cheng (1999) 73 SASR 502 R v Chung [2000] NSWCCA 153 R v GEC [2001] VSCA 146 R v He and Bun [2001] VSCA 58 R v Hoong (1994) 75 A Crim R 343 R v Hugo & Anor (2000) 113 A Crim R 484 R v Kovacs (2000) 111 A Crim R 374 R v Li (1998) 1 VR 637 R v Lopez (1993) 117 FLR 52 R v Morton (1987) 28 A Crim R 409 R v Storey (1998) 1 VR 359 R v Tee (1993) 71 A Crim R 181 R v Zakaria (1992) 62 A Crim R 259 R v Zapata [1996] VSCA 312 |
Continue reading Foo v the Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Foo v the Queen [2001] WASCA 406
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 406
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal by the applicant, Foo, against his conviction and sentence was heard in the High Court. Foo was convicted of possessing a commercial quantity of heroin and having previously committed similar offences. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury regarding the role of an accomplice in the commission of the crime. Additionally, the court had to determine if the 21-year sentence imposed on Foo was excessive, considering the gravity of the offence and the presence of aggravating circumstances.
In addressing the accomplice direction, the court found that the trial judge had sufficiently informed the jury about the legal requirements for establishing Foo's involvement as an accomplice. The judge's directions were considered comprehensive and aligned with the legal standards required. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged the severity of Foo's actions and his prior criminal history. However, it was determined that the original 21-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court reduced the sentence to 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months, reflecting a balance between punishment and deterrence.
The High Court dismissed Foo's appeal against his conviction, affirming the jury's decision. However, the appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the original sentence was substituted with a reduced term of 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months. This decision underscores the court's role in ensuring sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed while considering the broader context of the offender's history and the nature of the offence.
In addressing the accomplice direction, the court found that the trial judge had sufficiently informed the jury about the legal requirements for establishing Foo's involvement as an accomplice. The judge's directions were considered comprehensive and aligned with the legal standards required. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged the severity of Foo's actions and his prior criminal history. However, it was determined that the original 21-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court reduced the sentence to 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months, reflecting a balance between punishment and deterrence.
The High Court dismissed Foo's appeal against his conviction, affirming the jury's decision. However, the appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the original sentence was substituted with a reduced term of 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months. This decision underscores the court's role in ensuring sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed while considering the broader context of the offender's history and the nature of the offence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Sentence of 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years 6 months substituted
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.