KADEM -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 133
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 133 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 16/05/2002 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:141/2001 | 9 APRIL 2002 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J MURRAY J McKECHNIE J | 9/04/02 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Sentence reduced | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ABDUL HUSSEIN KADEM THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Illegal immigrant Delay of one year in laying charges He had confessed almost immediately on apprehension Co-operated with authorities On appeal |
Legislation: | Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 232A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 21E, s 29D |
Case References: | R v Miceli (1997) 139 FLR 309 R v Miceli (1997) 94 A Crim R 327 R v Shore (1992) 66 A Crim R 37 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 519 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254; (2001) 162 FLR 313 Arthur Reginald Roberts & Andrew Hope Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273 Camerson v The Queen [2002] HCA 6 Cita v The Queen, Lamaha v The Queen [2001] WASCA 5 Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456 Hayes v The Queen [1981] WAR 252 Illam v Dando (1999) 109 A Crim R 47 Iskander v The Queen [2001] WASCA 409 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 192 Nagy v The Queen [1992] 1 VR 637 Nguyen v The Queen [2001] WASCA 72 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Kasim, Batjo, Koli and Sidin, unreported; SCt of NT; 13 October 2000 R v Lapulu & Ors, unreported SCt of NT; 7 September 2000 R v Nagy [1992] 1 VR 637 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; 166 ALR 330 R v Salama, unreported; DCt of WA; 14 March 2001 Wale v The Queen [2001] WASCA 418 Wong v The Queen 185 ALR 233 X v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KADEM -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 133 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- MURRAY J
McKECHNIE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Illegal immigrant - Delay of one year in laying charges - He had confessed almost immediately on apprehension - Co-operated with authorities - On appeal
Legislation:
Migration Act 1958(Cth), s 232A
Crimes Act 1914(Cth), s 16A, s 21E, s 29D
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Sentence reduced
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Mr M G A Plummer
Solicitors:
Applicant : Laurie Levy &…
Continue reading Kadem v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Kadem v The Queen [2002] WASCA 133
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Kadem versus The Queen, the court was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant, an illegal immigrant, following his conviction for drug trafficking. The appellant had confessed almost immediately upon apprehension and had cooperated with authorities. The respondent, the Crown, argued for a harsher sentence due to the appellant's illegal status and the nature of the offence. The appellant, however, appealed on the grounds that the delay in laying charges and his cooperation with authorities warranted a reduced sentence.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delay in laying charges and the appellant's cooperation should be considered mitigating factors in sentencing. The court was required to weigh these factors against the severity of the offence and the need to deter similar criminal behaviour. The appellant argued that the delay in laying charges and his cooperation should result in a more lenient sentence, while the Crown contended that these factors should not substantially reduce the sentence due to the serious nature of the crime.
The court, in its deliberations, acknowledged the appellant's prompt confession and cooperation with authorities as significant mitigating factors. The court recognised that the delay in laying charges, while not in itself a mitigating factor, did not exacerbate the offence. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of society, but ultimately found that the appellant's cooperation and the absence of any aggravating circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delay in laying charges and the appellant's cooperation should be considered mitigating factors in sentencing. The court was required to weigh these factors against the severity of the offence and the need to deter similar criminal behaviour. The appellant argued that the delay in laying charges and his cooperation should result in a more lenient sentence, while the Crown contended that these factors should not substantially reduce the sentence due to the serious nature of the crime.
The court, in its deliberations, acknowledged the appellant's prompt confession and cooperation with authorities as significant mitigating factors. The court recognised that the delay in laying charges, while not in itself a mitigating factor, did not exacerbate the offence. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of society, but ultimately found that the appellant's cooperation and the absence of any aggravating circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Sentence reduced
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.