HIRON -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 310
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 310 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:10/2003 | 6 NOVEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MILLER J MCKECHNIE J WALLWORK AJ | 10/12/03 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal against sentence granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KYAL PETER HIRON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Drug offences Whether sentences should have been cumulative Whether penalty of forfeiture of $10,000 sufficiently taken into account Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1988 (WA) Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) |
Case References: | Bowman v The Queen (1995) 14 WAR 466 Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 666 Jarvis v The Queen (1999) 20 WAR 201 Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164 Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mada v The Queen [2003] WASCA 1 R v Rintel (1991) 3 WAR 527 Rintel v The Queen (1993) WAR 527 Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201 Paparone v The Queen (2000) 112 A Crim R 190 Pieri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 357 R v Baxter, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9073; 26 September 1991 R v Brown (1982) 5 A Crim R 404 R v Carey (1975) 11 SASR 575 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Weston [2000] WASCA 389 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HIRON -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 310 CORAM : MILLER J
- MCKECHNIE J
WALLWORK AJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Drug offences - Whether sentences should have been cumulative - Whether penalty of forfeiture of $10,000 sufficiently taken into account - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1988 (WA)
Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms J Fordham
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart
Solicitors:
Applicant : Kott Gunning
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bowman v The Queen (1995) 14 WAR 466
Jarvis v The Queen (1999) 20 WAR 201
Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164
Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mada v The Queen [2003] WASCA 1
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
Rintel v The Queen (1991) 3 WAR 527
Case(s) also cited:
Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201
Paparone v The Queen (2000) 112 A Crim R 190
Pieri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 357
R…
Continue reading Hiron v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hiron v The Queen [2003] WASCA 310
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Hiron versus The Queen, the appellant sought to appeal the sentence imposed upon him for drug-related offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant argued that his sentences were excessive and should not have been cumulative. Additionally, the appellant argued that the penalty of forfeiture of $10,000 had not been sufficiently taken into account by the sentencing judge. The legal issues at hand were whether the sentences should have been cumulative and whether the penalty of forfeiture of $10,000 had been adequately considered by the trial judge.
The court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, which require a balance between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in imposing the sentences, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar crimes. The court also found that the penalty of forfeiture of $10,000 had been adequately considered by the trial judge in the context of the overall sentence. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in imposing the sentences and that the appellant's argument for cumulative sentences was not supported by the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's leave to appeal against the sentence was granted. The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and there was no error in the sentencing process. The court acknowledged that the appellant's argument had some merit, but ultimately found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of criminal sentencing. The court's decision highlights the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when reviewing sentences imposed by trial judges.
The court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, which require a balance between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in imposing the sentences, taking into account the appellant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar crimes. The court also found that the penalty of forfeiture of $10,000 had been adequately considered by the trial judge in the context of the overall sentence. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in imposing the sentences and that the appellant's argument for cumulative sentences was not supported by the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's leave to appeal against the sentence was granted. The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and there was no error in the sentencing process. The court acknowledged that the appellant's argument had some merit, but ultimately found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of criminal sentencing. The court's decision highlights the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when reviewing sentences imposed by trial judges.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
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.