Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: BIRMINGHAM DCJ
File Number : IND 1187 of 2017 and IND 468 of 2017
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Appellant and a co‑offender charged with the federal offence of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug - Appellant and a different co‑offender charged with two counts of the State offence of offering to sell a prohibited drug to another - Appellant also charged with the State offence of possessing $154,950 cash that was reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained - Pleas of guilty - Total effective sentence of 10 years 6 months' imprisonment - Whether the sentencing judge made a material error of fact - Manifest excess - Parity principle - Totality principle
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 19(2), s 19AB Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4)(a), s 41(3)(c), s 41(3)(d) Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.2A(1), s 307.1(1), s 307.2(1) Criminal Code (WA), s 417(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(c) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA
Result:
Application for an extension of time to appeal granted Leave to appeal on ground 1 granted Leave to appeal on grounds 2, 3 and 4 refused Appeal allowed Appellant re‑sentenced
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Law v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Law v The Queen [2019] WASCA 81
Case
[2019] WASCA 81
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was charged, along with co-offenders, with federal and state drug-related offences, and possessing cash suspected to be unlawfully obtained. After pleading guilty, the appellant was sentenced to a total effective term of 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge made a material error of fact and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant also argued that the sentence did not accord with the principles of parity and totality.
The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the sentencing judge erred in fact, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether it adhered to the principles of parity and totality. The court had to consider the nature and severity of the crimes, the role of the appellant in the offences, and the need to ensure appropriate deterrence and rehabilitation.
The court found that the sentencing judge did not make a material error of fact. It held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it appropriately balanced the principles of parity and totality. The court noted the gravity of the drug importation offence and the appellant's involvement in multiple drug-related crimes. The sentence was deemed to be proportionate to the crimes and consistent with sentences for similar offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.