Marchesano v The Queen

Case [2000] WASCA 225


MARCHESANO -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 225



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 225
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:5/20008 JUNE 2000
Coram:KENNEDY ACJ
WALLWORK J
PARKER J
24/08/00
14Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for leave to appeal against conviction granted
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
PDF Version
Parties:ANTHONY THOMAS MARCHESANO
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
Whether police officer qualified to give evidence as to use of methylamphetamine and as to practice of mixing it with other substances prior to sale
Criminal law and procedure
Sentencing
Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
Sentence of 3-1/2 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole not interfered with

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Anderson v The Queen (1992) 64 A Crim R 312
Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990015; 22 January 1999
Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 63

Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v ICI Australia Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 529
Eagles v Orth [1976] Qd R 313
English Exporters (London) Ltd v Eldonwall Ltd [1973] Ch 415
Folkes v Chadd (1782) 3 Dougl 157; 99 ER 589
Hawkins v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970194; 1 May 1997
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127
R v Barker (1988) 34 A Crim R 141
R v Darrington (1979) 1 A Crim R 124
R v Doyle (1994) 71 A Crim R 360
R v Gardner [1980] Qd R 531
R v Marinovich (1990) 46 A Crim R 282
R v Onea (1994) 74 A Crim R 395
R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394
R v Reed (1993) 65 A Crim R 434
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769
Transport Publishing Co Pty Ltd v Literature Board of Review (1956) 99 CLR 111
Vodanovic v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960056; 9 February 1996
Yager v R [1977] WAR 17

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MARCHESANO -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 225 CORAM : KENNEDY ACJ
    WALLWORK J
    PARKER J
HEARD : 8 JUNE 2000 DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 5 of 2000
    CCA 6 of 2000
BETWEEN : ANTHONY THOMAS MARCHESANO
    Applicant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Whether police officer qualified to give evidence as to use of methylamphetamine and as to practice of mixing it with other substances prior to sale



Criminal law…

Continue reading Marchesano v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Marchesano v The Queen [2000] WASCA 225
Case
[2000] WASCA 225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Marchesano, was convicted of possessing methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The appeal against conviction and sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of certain police evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The court had to determine if the police officer was qualified to provide evidence on the use of methylamphetamine and the practice of mixing it with other substances prior to sale. Additionally, the court assessed the sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment, with eligibility for parole, to determine if it was appropriate.

In ruling on these matters, the court held that the police officer's evidence was admissible as it pertained to matters within his professional experience and expertise. The officer's testimony regarding the use of methylamphetamine and the practice of mixing it with other substances was deemed relevant to establishing the appellant's intent to sell or supply the drug. Consequently, the court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted this evidence. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the punishment imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, given the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

As a result of the court's findings, the application for leave to appeal against the conviction was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The final orders were that the appellant's application for leave to appeal against conviction was granted, but the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against conviction granted

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.