MANIACI -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 195
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 195 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:86/1999 | 14 APRIL 2000 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ KENNEDY J MURRAY J | 2/08/00 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal against conviction refused Leave to appeal against sentence granted Appeal allowedSentences varied | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ERNESTO MANIACI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Cannabis cultivation Two offences at separate premises Directions as to whether accused a principal offender or aider and abettor Directions as to fingerprint evidence and circumstantial evidence generally Verdicts not unsafe or unsatisfactory. Sentencing Aggregate term of 5 years imprisonment imposed Term reduced to 3 years 8 months Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 Kennedy v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 3 April 1998 Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Laporte v The Queen [1970] WAR 87 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Olbrich (1999) 73 ALJR 1550 Ruane v The Queen (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 Shaw v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993 178 CLR 217 Giowkos v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9604780; 26 August 1996 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 Marchesano (1992) 61 A Crim R 372 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Pickett v Fuderer, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980174; 3 April 1998 Pickett v Fuderer, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980475; 27 August 1998 Poole v The Queen [1999] WASCA 46 R v Langridge (1996) 87 A Crim R 1 R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 R v Ward [1999] WASCA 157 Van Thong Dao v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999 Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MANIACI -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 195 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- KENNEDY J
MURRAY J
- CCA 87 of 1999
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Cannabis cultivation - Two offences at separate premises - Directions as to whether accused a principal offender or aider and abettor - Directions as to fingerprint evidence and circumstantial evidence generally - Verdicts not unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Sentencing - Aggregate term of 5 years imprisonment imposed - Term reduced to 3…
Continue reading Maniaci v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Maniaci v The Queen [2000] WASCA 195
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 195
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Maniaci, was convicted and sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment for cultivating cannabis at two separate locations. The primary dispute was whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning the distinction between being a principal offender and an aider and abettor, as well as in relation to the use of fingerprint evidence and the assessment of circumstantial evidence generally. Additionally, the appellant challenged the overall severity of the sentence imposed.
The court examined whether the trial judge's directions were adequate and correctly framed the legal issues for the jury. The focus was on whether the judge's instructions allowed the jury to properly distinguish between being a principal offender and an accessory and whether the judge appropriately guided the jury on the use of fingerprint evidence and circumstantial evidence. The court also assessed the safety and satisfaction of the verdicts.
The court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and did not misdirect the jury on the crucial distinctions between being a principal offender and an aider and abettor. The court found that the evidence, including the fingerprint evidence and the circumstantial evidence, was sufficient for a jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court upheld the verdicts as safe and satisfactory. However, regarding the sentence, the court found the original sentence of 5 years imprisonment to be excessive. The court reduced the sentence to 3 years and 8 months, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.
The court denied leave to appeal against the conviction but granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentences were varied as per the court's decision.
The court examined whether the trial judge's directions were adequate and correctly framed the legal issues for the jury. The focus was on whether the judge's instructions allowed the jury to properly distinguish between being a principal offender and an accessory and whether the judge appropriately guided the jury on the use of fingerprint evidence and circumstantial evidence. The court also assessed the safety and satisfaction of the verdicts.
The court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and did not misdirect the jury on the crucial distinctions between being a principal offender and an aider and abettor. The court found that the evidence, including the fingerprint evidence and the circumstantial evidence, was sufficient for a jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court upheld the verdicts as safe and satisfactory. However, regarding the sentence, the court found the original sentence of 5 years imprisonment to be excessive. The court reduced the sentence to 3 years and 8 months, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.
The court denied leave to appeal against the conviction but granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentences were varied as per the court's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal against conviction refused
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal allowedSentences varied
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.