HEADLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 88
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 88 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:152/2003 | 5 MARCH 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J | 11/05/04 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTHONY WILLIAM HEADLEY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Drug offences Parity in sentencing Whether unwarranted disparity between 5 years for manufacturing amphetamine and 2 years for manufacturing and possession with intent 5year sentence for manufacture of amphetamine within the appropriate range Having regard to the respective roles of the offenders, no disparity made out Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Drug offences Personal circumstances of offender as a mitigating factor Personal circumstances of offender taken into account in sentencing Appeal dismissed Criminal law Sentencing Drug offences Totality Whether a total sentence of 10 years is excessive where individual sentences are within the appropriate range Total sentence of 10 years is proportionate to offender's criminal conduct |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1)(a)(b) |
Case References: | Abela v The Queen [2002] WASCA 279 Brittain v The Queen [2001] WASCA 92 Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305 Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296 R v Pallister [2002] WASCA 68 Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303 Accini v The Queen [2001] WASCA 211 Brittain v The Queen [2001] WASCA 117 Cameron v The Queen [2000] WASCA 286 Crutch v The Queen [1999] WASCA 187 Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Kezkiropoulos v The Queen [2002] WASCA 352 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Magee v The Queen [1980] WAR 117 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Bowman (1993) 69 A Crim R 530 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HEADLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 88 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WHEELER J
MCKECHNIE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : HAMMOND CJDC
File Number : IND 1345 of 2003
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Drug offences - Parity in sentencing - Whether unwarranted disparity between 5 years for manufacturing amphetamine and 2 years for manufacturing and possession with intent - 5year sentence for
(Page 2)
manufacture of amphetamine within the appropriate range - Having regard to the respective roles of the offenders, no disparity made out
Continue reading Headley v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Headley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 88
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Headley v The Queen was heard in the court of appeal. The appellant, Mr. Headley, was convicted of various drug offences and sentenced to a total of 10 years in prison. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the sentences imposed by the lower court were appropriate, particularly in relation to the disparity between sentences for similar offences and the overall length of the sentence. Mr. Headley argued that the sentence for manufacturing amphetamine was disproportionate, as it was significantly higher than the sentence for another individual who was convicted of both manufacturing and possessing the drug with intent to supply.
The court examined the legal principles relevant to sentencing, particularly the requirement for parity in sentencing and the consideration of the totality of an offender's criminal conduct. The court found that the sentences imposed by the lower court were within the appropriate range, taking into account the severity of the offences and the respective roles of the offenders. The court also considered the personal circumstances of Mr. Headley, which were acknowledged as mitigating factors, but ultimately concluded that these did not warrant a reduction in the overall sentence. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the totality of the 10-year sentence was proportionate to the appellant's criminal conduct.
The court examined the legal principles relevant to sentencing, particularly the requirement for parity in sentencing and the consideration of the totality of an offender's criminal conduct. The court found that the sentences imposed by the lower court were within the appropriate range, taking into account the severity of the offences and the respective roles of the offenders. The court also considered the personal circumstances of Mr. Headley, which were acknowledged as mitigating factors, but ultimately concluded that these did not warrant a reduction in the overall sentence. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the totality of the 10-year sentence was proportionate to the appellant's criminal conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to 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.