MARLAN -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 184
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 184 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:88/2002 | 4 JUNE 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J ANDERSON J | 15/08/03 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MARLAN -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 184 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MURRAY J
ANDERSON J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Whether sentences imposed for possession and attempted possession of two quantities of methylamphetamines manifestly excessive - Quantity of drugs possessed was 79.3 grams pure - Quantity of drugs attempted to be possessed was 1.9245 kilogram pure
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 19AB
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c), s 235
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms H E Prince
Respondent : Mr H G Dembo
Solicitors:
Applicant : Andree Horrigan
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383
Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 ALR…
Continue reading Marlan v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Marlan v The Queen [2003] WASCA 184
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 184
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Marlan v The Queen, the applicant appealed against the sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria for possession and attempted possession of two quantities of methylamphetamines. The applicant was found to possess 79.3 grams of pure methylamphetamine and to have attempted to possess an additional 1.9245 kilograms of the drug. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences, which were deemed excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, taking into account the quantities of the drugs involved.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentences imposed by the County Court were manifestly excessive, given the quantities of methylamphetamines involved. The applicant argued that the sentences were disproportionately harsh, especially considering the amount of drugs involved. The Crown, on the other hand, maintained that the sentences were appropriate and within the range of penalties that could be imposed for such offences.
The Court considered the severity of the sentences in light of the quantities of drugs involved and the principles of sentencing. It acknowledged that the possession and attempted possession of large quantities of methylamphetamine are serious offences that warrant significant punishment. However, the Court also recognised that the applicant had shown remorse and had cooperated with authorities. After carefully weighing these factors, the Court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal but granted leave to appeal against the sentences imposed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentences imposed by the County Court were manifestly excessive, given the quantities of methylamphetamines involved. The applicant argued that the sentences were disproportionately harsh, especially considering the amount of drugs involved. The Crown, on the other hand, maintained that the sentences were appropriate and within the range of penalties that could be imposed for such offences.
The Court considered the severity of the sentences in light of the quantities of drugs involved and the principles of sentencing. It acknowledged that the possession and attempted possession of large quantities of methylamphetamine are serious offences that warrant significant punishment. However, the Court also recognised that the applicant had shown remorse and had cooperated with authorities. After carefully weighing these factors, the Court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal but granted leave to appeal against the sentences imposed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed
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.