McGREGOR -v- CONNOR & ANOR [2001] WASCA 187

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 187
Case No:	SJA:1078/2001	Heard:	11 JUNE 2001
Coram:	McLURE J	Delivered:	21/06/01
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL WADE McGREGOR TONY DARREN CONNOR ANTHONY JOHN WALTON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Use and possession for personal use of amphetamines Appeal from Magistrate Whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive Test to apply in considering whether to suspend imprisonment Whether custodial sentence appropriate Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act Police Act Sentencing Act 1995
Case References:	Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998 Colledge v The Queen [2001] WASCA 132 House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338 R v Dinsdale (2000) 115 A Crim R 558 R v Wroblewski (1999) 105 A Crim R 129 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Matsebula v Vandeklashorst [2000] WASCA 141 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 97 A Crim R R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Vickers v Bailey [2000] WASCA 136

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : McGREGOR -v- CONNOR & ANOR [2001] WASCA 187 CORAM : McLURE J HEARD : 11 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 21 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1078 of 2001 BETWEEN : MICHAEL WADE McGREGOR

Applicant

AND

TONY DARREN CONNOR

First Respondent

ANTHONY JOHN WALTON

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Use and possession for personal use of amphetamines - Appeal from Magistrate - Whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive - Test to apply in considering whether to suspend imprisonment - Whether custodial sentence appropriate - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act

Police Act
Sentencing Act 1995

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D D Barker

First Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin

Second Respondent : Mr M A G Jenkin

Solicitors:

Applicant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

First Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Second Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bessell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980199; 4 March 1998
Colledge v The Queen [2001] WASCA 132
House v The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
R v Dinsdale (2000) 115 A Crim R 558
R v Wroblewski (1999) 105 A Crim R 129

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Matsebula v Vandeklashorst [2000] WASCA 141
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Liddington (1997) 97 A Crim R
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Vickers v Bailey [2000] WASCA 136

(Page 3)

1 McLURE J

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading McGregor v Connor

Details

AGLC: McGregor v Connor [2001] WASCA 187
Case: [2001] WASCA 187
Decision Date: 21 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McGregor v Connor, the appellant was convicted of possessing amphetamines for personal use. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the magistrate, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate did not consider all relevant factors when imposing the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the appropriate test to apply when considering whether to suspend imprisonment, and whether a custodial sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate did not consider all relevant factors when imposing the sentence. The court held that the appropriate test to apply when considering whether to suspend imprisonment is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive, and whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify suspending the sentence. The court also held that a custodial sentence was not appropriate in the circumstances, as the appellant was a first-time offender with no prior criminal history, and the amount of drugs possessed was relatively small. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed by the magistrate were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.