KOUSHAPPIS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 18
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 18 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:147/2000 | 19 OCTOBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J MURRAY J | 6/02/01 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal grantedAppeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANDREW CHRIS KOUSHAPPIS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Two offences of selling heroin to another, one offence of possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply it to another Quantities of heroin sold weighing 0.09 grams and being of 53 to 56 per cent purity Offender apprehended when in process of disposing of heroin in his possession so that its quantity and quality were not capable of being measured Very poor antecedents Previous convictions for commercial trafficking Effective sentence of 6 years' imprisonment reduced to 4-1/2 years |
Legislation: | Sentencing Act 1995, s 7(1), s 7(2) |
Case References: | La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Akers & Ors, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920080; 11 February 1992 R v Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Smith v The Queen [2000] WASCA 243 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1538 Jackson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8752; 8 March 1991 Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Pop v The Queen [2000] WASCA 283 R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980619; 29 October 1998 R v Miller (1989) 4 A Crim R 185 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Rose v The Queen [2000] WASCA 238 Troy v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980068; 13 February 1998 Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119 Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KOUSHAPPIS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 18 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Two offences of selling heroin to another, one offence of possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply it to another - Quantities of heroin sold weighing 0.09 grams and being of 53 to 56 per cent purity - Offender apprehended when in process of disposing of heroin in his possession so that its quantity and quality were not capable of being measured - Very poor antecedents - Previous convictions for commercial trafficking - Effective sentence of 6 years' imprisonment reduced to 4-1/2 years
Legislation:
Sentencing Act 1995, s 7(1), s 7(2)
(Page 2)
Result:
Continue reading Koushappis v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Koushappis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 18
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Koushappis v The Queen involved an individual charged with multiple offences related to the possession and sale of heroin. The accused was apprehended while in the process of disposing of heroin, and as such, the precise quantity and quality could not be measured. The charges included two counts of selling heroin to another person and one count of possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the small quantity of heroin involved and the offender's extensive criminal history.
The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentence for the offences, and the assessment of the factors that should be considered in sentencing, such as the nature and circumstances of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. The court had to weigh the relatively small quantity of heroin against the offender's extensive history of drug-related offences and commercial trafficking, as well as the need to protect the community from the harm caused by drug dealing.
In delivering its decision, the court acknowledged the small quantity of heroin involved in the offences but emphasised the offender's extensive criminal history, which included previous convictions for commercial trafficking. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the community from the harm caused by drug dealing. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an effective sentence of six years' imprisonment was appropriate, but reduced this to a term of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The court also granted leave to appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal.
The court's final orders included granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal, with the effective sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment to be served. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering both the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the offender's criminal history, in determining an appropriate sentence for drug-related offences.
The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentence for the offences, and the assessment of the factors that should be considered in sentencing, such as the nature and circumstances of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. The court had to weigh the relatively small quantity of heroin against the offender's extensive history of drug-related offences and commercial trafficking, as well as the need to protect the community from the harm caused by drug dealing.
In delivering its decision, the court acknowledged the small quantity of heroin involved in the offences but emphasised the offender's extensive criminal history, which included previous convictions for commercial trafficking. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the community from the harm caused by drug dealing. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an effective sentence of six years' imprisonment was appropriate, but reduced this to a term of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The court also granted leave to appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal.
The court's final orders included granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal, with the effective sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment to be served. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering both the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the offender's criminal history, in determining an appropriate sentence for drug-related offences.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal grantedAppeal 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.