LAM -v- THE QUEEN [2014] WASCA 114
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 114 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:107/2013 | 5 MARCH 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA NEWNES JA | 3/06/14 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LAM -v- THE QUEEN [2014] WASCA 114 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
NEWNES JA
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : STEVENSON DCJ
File No : IND 1499 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeals against sentence - Importing a marketable quantity of heroin - Whether non-parole periods manifestly excessive -…
Continue reading Lam v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lam v The Queen [2014] WASCA 114
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Lam v The Queen, the appellant, Lam, sought to appeal against his sentence following his conviction for importing a marketable quantity of heroin. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was whether the non-parole periods imposed by the sentencing judge were manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had erred in not providing adequate reasons for the high non-parole periods.
The court examined the criteria for determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court also assessed whether the sentencing judge had provided sufficient reasons to justify the high non-parole periods imposed. The court held that the sentencing judge had considered the appropriate factors in determining the non-parole periods and that the reasons provided were sufficient. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court concluded that the non-parole periods imposed were not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not erred in the manner in which reasons were given. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various considerations relevant to the imposition of sentence in this case. The final orders of the court were that the appeals against sentence were dismissed, and the original sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were upheld.
The court examined the criteria for determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court also assessed whether the sentencing judge had provided sufficient reasons to justify the high non-parole periods imposed. The court held that the sentencing judge had considered the appropriate factors in determining the non-parole periods and that the reasons provided were sufficient. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court concluded that the non-parole periods imposed were not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not erred in the manner in which reasons were given. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various considerations relevant to the imposition of sentence in this case. The final orders of the court were that the appeals against sentence were dismissed, and the original sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals 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.