ISKANDAR -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 409
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 409 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:122/2001 | 5 DECEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J WHITE AUJ OLSSON AUJ | 20/12/01 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MIRA ISKANDAR THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Appeal against sentence Importation of narcotics Fast-track plea Nine and a half years' imprisonment manifestly excessive Appropriate sentence discount for fasttrack plea Assistance rendered and future promised assistance Mitigating circumstances Lesser sentence imposed |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21E Customs Act 1901, s 233B |
Case References: | "X" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 Breuer and Chaney v The Queen (1986) 32 A Crim R 1 Epiha v The Queen (1987) 32 A Crim R 12 Gallagher v The Queen (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 Hayes v The Queen [1981] WAR 252 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 R v Breuer & Chaney (1986) 32 A Crim R 1 R v Epiha (1987) 32 A Crim R 12 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Golding (1980) 24 SASR 161 R v Morgan (1996) 87 A Crim R 104 R v Smith (1987) 27 A Crim R 315 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 R v Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 Barany v The Queen [2000] WASCA 240 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456 R v Heryadi (1998) A Crim R 578 House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Jones (1993) 70 A Crim R 449 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141 R v Paunovic (1990) 51 A Crim R 174 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Tait (1979) 24 ALR 473 R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418 R v Spagnolo (2000) 114 A Crim R 98 R v Verschuren (1996) 91 A Crim R 1 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ISKANDAR -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 409 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- WHITE AUJ
OLSSON AUJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal against sentence - Importation of narcotics - Fast-track plea - Nine and a half years' imprisonment manifestly excessive - Appropriate sentence discount for fasttrack plea - Assistance rendered and future promised assistance - Mitigating circumstances - Lesser sentence imposed
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21E
Customs Act 1901,…
Continue reading Iskandar v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Iskandar v The Queen [2001] WASCA 409
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 409
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter in Iskandar v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence handed down to the appellant, Iskandar, who was found guilty of importing a large quantity of narcotics into Australia. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, with the respondent being the Crown, represented by The Queen. Iskandar's legal team argued that the original sentence of nine and a half years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, while the Crown maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and, if so, what the appropriate sentence discount for the fast-track plea should be. Additionally, the court considered whether the mitigating factors presented, such as the assistance rendered by the appellant and the future assistance promised, warranted a lesser sentence. The court also needed to determine if the appellant's personal circumstances and background warranted any consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.
In its judgment, the High Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the substantial discount that was applicable due to Iskandar's decision to enter a fast-track plea. Furthermore, the court took into account the assistance provided by Iskandar and the promise of future assistance, which it considered to be significant mitigating factors. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and background in determining the appropriate sentence. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal and imposed a lesser sentence on Iskandar, reflecting the appropriate discount for the fast-track plea and the mitigating factors presented.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and, if so, what the appropriate sentence discount for the fast-track plea should be. Additionally, the court considered whether the mitigating factors presented, such as the assistance rendered by the appellant and the future assistance promised, warranted a lesser sentence. The court also needed to determine if the appellant's personal circumstances and background warranted any consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.
In its judgment, the High Court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the substantial discount that was applicable due to Iskandar's decision to enter a fast-track plea. Furthermore, the court took into account the assistance provided by Iskandar and the promise of future assistance, which it considered to be significant mitigating factors. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and background in determining the appropriate sentence. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal and imposed a lesser sentence on Iskandar, reflecting the appropriate discount for the fast-track plea and the mitigating factors presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.