LAWTON -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 199

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 199
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:14/2002	Heard:	11 JUNE 2002
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J MILLER J	Delivered:	29/07/02
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	TULL CHRISTIAN LAWTON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Possession of methylamphetamine and ecstasy with intent to sell or supply, also possession of cannabis, two prohibited smoking implements and unlicensed ammunition Total sentence of 6 and a half years' imprisonment Whether sentence manifestly excessive Whether any other failure of discretion shown Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code WA, s 689(3)
Case References:	Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 815 "S" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 34 Legeng v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950391; 8 April 1995 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Tsagaris v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : LAWTON -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 199 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

STEYTLER J

MILLER J

HEARD : 11 JUNE 2002 DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 14 of 2002 BETWEEN : TULL CHRISTIAN LAWTON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Possession of methylamphetamine and ecstasy with intent to sell or supply, also possession of cannabis, two prohibited smoking implements and unlicensed ammunition - Total sentence of 6 and a half years' imprisonment - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether any other failure of discretion shown - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code WA, s 689(3)

(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 815

Case(s) also cited:

"S" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 34
Legeng v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950391; 8 April 1995
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
Tsagaris v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998
Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Lawton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lawton v The Queen [2002] WASCA 199
Case: [2002] WASCA 199
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lawton v The Queen, the appellant was convicted for possession of methylamphetamine and ecstasy with intent to sell or supply, along with possession of cannabis, two prohibited smoking implements, and unlicensed ammunition. The total sentence imposed was six and a half years' imprisonment. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that there was a failure of judicial discretion. The central issue was whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed, taking into account the totality of the offences and the appellant's circumstances. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the discretion exercised by the trial judge, considering the severity of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact on the community.

The court deliberated on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, a standard requiring the sentence to be so high that no reasonable sentencing judge could have imposed it. It also assessed whether there was any other failure of judicial discretion, considering the sentencing guidelines and the proportionality of the punishment. The court found that the sentence was within the range of what a reasonable sentencing judge could impose, taking into account the severity and nature of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The appeal court was satisfied that the trial judge had exercised their discretion properly, considering all relevant factors and ensuring the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.