Mark Vick Kitis v The State of Western Australia

[2013] HCASL 143

MARK VICK KITIS

v

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

[2013] HCASL 143
P20/2013

1. On 4 August 2011, the applicant pleaded guilty to two offences in the District Court of Western Australia before Scott DCJ:  attempting to possess 4.983 kilograms of methylamphetamine, at a purity ranging between 53 and 69 per cent, with intent to sell or supply; and possession of just under 208 grams of methylamphetamine, at a purity of 22 per cent, with intent to sell or supply.  As to the first charge, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine years.  With respect to the second charge, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years.  Scott DCJ ordered that the terms of imprisonment be served cumulatively.  Having regard to the totality principle, Scott DCJ held that 12 years imprisonment appropriately reflected the degree of the applicant's criminality. 

2. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia on the sole ground that the total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment infringed the totality principle.  On 11 February 2013, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.  Buss JA (Martin CJ and Mazza JA agreeing) held that the total effective sentence was within the range of a sound exercise by the sentencing judge of his discretion, taking into account the maximum penalty available and the objective seriousness of the appellant's offending. 

3. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  He requires an extension of time to bring his application.  He seeks to contend that he was sentenced on an erroneous factual basis which overstated his role in the offending.  The applicant's summary of argument merely presents the applicant's version of events without identifying any error in the Court of Appeal's decision.  In particular, no question of principle is raised for determination.  Whilst the sentence imposed was lengthy, it cannot be said to have offended the totality principle.  Any appeal would have insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave.  The application for an extension of time should be refused. 

4. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
   
   

S.M. Kiefel
4 September 2013 P.A. Keane