Legal Research
Cases
GLO v The King

GLO v The King

Case [2025] WASCA 49 8 April 2025

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Motivation for Offending

Mitigating Factors

Role in Offending

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   GLO -v- THE KING [2025] WASCA 49
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
MAZZA JA
HALL JA

HEARD:   24 JULY 2024
DELIVERED          :   8 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACR 124 of 2023
BETWEEN:   GLO
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   CHRISTIAN DCJ
File Number            :   IND XXX of XXXX

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Commonwealth drug offences - Importation of marketable quantity of border controlled drug (cocaine) - Whether discount for past cooperation manifestly inadequate - Whether sentencing judge erred when finding motivation for offending - Whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to mitigating factors - Whether sentencing judge erred in characterising appellant's role in offending - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(h)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.2(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 1 to 6 refused
Leave to appeal on ground 7 granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	G Janssen
Respondent	:	K Breckweg

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Janssen + Maluga Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Browne v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 162
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Cappis v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 138
Cressel v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 26
DGF v The Queen [2021] WASCA 4
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Merrill (a pseudonym) [2015] VSCA 52
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Terrick [2009] VSCA 220; (2009) 24 VR 457
El‑Ghourani v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 140; (2009) 195 A Crim R 208
Gaskell v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 8
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
HSV v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 5; (2020) 281 A Crim R 147
Lau v The Queen [2011] VSCA 324
Le v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 136
Martellotta v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 168
Martinez v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 250
Moore v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 121
MXP v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 215; (2010) 41 WAR 149
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Gladkowski [2000] QCA 352; (2000) 115 A Crim R 446
R v Harris [2009] QCA 370
R v MHM [2023] WASCA 172
R v Ng [2012] WASCA 180
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269
SZ v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 19; (2007) 168 A Crim R 249
The State of Western Australia v Tran [2008] WASCA 183
Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17
Youssef v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 104
ZZ v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 286; (2019) 348 FLR 111

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

On 5 October 2023, the appellant was convicted on her plea of guilty…

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 GLO v The King

Details

AGLC: GLO v The King [2025] WASCA 49
Case: [2025] WASCA 49
Decision Date: 8 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of GLO v The King, the appellant, GLO, appealed against the sentence imposed for Commonwealth drug offences related to the importation of a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, cocaine. The dispute centred on whether the discount given for past cooperation was manifestly inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge erred in various aspects of the sentencing process. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing these issues.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the discount for past cooperation, in assessing the motivation for the offending, in failing to consider mitigating factors, in characterising the appellant's role in the offending, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the discount for past cooperation was inadequate and that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider various mitigating factors, motivation, and the appellant's role in the offending.

The court found that the discount for past cooperation was not manifestly inadequate, as the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's cooperation and the nature of the offence. The court also determined that the sentencing judge had not erred in finding the motivation for the offending, as there was sufficient evidence to support the judge's conclusion. The court further held that the sentencing judge had not failed to consider mitigating factors, as the judge had taken into account the appellant's cooperation and other relevant factors. Finally, the court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in characterising the appellant's role in the offending, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed and the original sentence was upheld. The court found no errors in the sentencing process and determined that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders