MA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 325
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 325 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:85/2001 | 3 OCTOBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J ROBERTS-SMITH J | 26/10/01 | |
| 35 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RONG MA THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Attempting to obtain possession of trafficable quantity of prohibited drugs imported into Australia Guilty plea Cooperation with authorities Sentencing discount Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Disparity 6 months discount for plea of guilty Cooffender given discount of 12 months for plea of guilty Applicant given head term of 5 years imprisonment Cooffender who went to trial sentenced to 51/2 years |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21E(1)(a), s 21E(3) Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(5) |
Case References: | Atholwood v The Queen (1999) 109 A Crim R 465 Duffy (1996) 85 A Crim R 456 Goddard v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 541 Hayes v The Queen [1981] WAR 252 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 McKeagg v The Queen [2001] WASCA 99 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Capper (1993) 69 A Crim R 64 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Golding (1980) 24 SASR 161; 3 A Crim R 26 R v Hayes (1981) 3 A Crim R 286 R v Nagy [1992] 1 VR 637 R v Perez-Vargas (1987) 8 NSWLR 559 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 Thorne v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990154; 29 March 1999 Veneziani v The Queen [2001] WASCA 246 Cottrell (1989) A Crim R 31 Doherty v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970518; 14 October 1997 Foster and D'Anna (1992) 59 A Crim R 14 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383 Lim v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997 Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 92 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 219 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Thompson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273 X v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 325 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- TEMPLEMAN J
ROBERTS-SMITH J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Attempting to obtain possession of trafficable quantity of prohibited drugs imported into Australia - Guilty plea - Cooperation with authorities - Sentencing discount
Continue reading Ma v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Ma v The Queen [2001] WASCA 325
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 325
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Ma v The Queen was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant, Ma, challenged his sentence for attempting to obtain possession of a trafficable quantity of prohibited drugs that had been imported into Australia. Ma had pleaded guilty and cooperated with the authorities, but argued that the sentencing disparity between him and his co-offender, who had been given a lesser sentence despite going to trial, was unjust.
The legal issues before the court were whether the disparity in sentencing between Ma and his co-offender was justified, and whether the sentence imposed on Ma was appropriate given the discount for his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
The court found that the disparity in sentencing between Ma and his co-offender was not justified, as the co-offender had received a greater discount for going to trial, despite the fact that Ma had pleaded guilty and cooperated with authorities. The court also found that the sentence imposed on Ma was excessive, given the discount for his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The court allowed Ma's appeal and set aside his sentence, ordering that he be re-sentenced.
The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and Ma's sentence was set aside and remitted for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentencing is fair and consistent, and that discounts for guilty pleas and cooperation with authorities are properly taken into account.
The legal issues before the court were whether the disparity in sentencing between Ma and his co-offender was justified, and whether the sentence imposed on Ma was appropriate given the discount for his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.
The court found that the disparity in sentencing between Ma and his co-offender was not justified, as the co-offender had received a greater discount for going to trial, despite the fact that Ma had pleaded guilty and cooperated with authorities. The court also found that the sentence imposed on Ma was excessive, given the discount for his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The court allowed Ma's appeal and set aside his sentence, ordering that he be re-sentenced.
The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and Ma's sentence was set aside and remitted for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentencing is fair and consistent, and that discounts for guilty pleas and cooperation with authorities are properly taken into account.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
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.