JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: MEDAN -v- THE QUEEN [2011] WASCA 142
CORAM: PULLIN JA
BUSS JA
HALL J
HEARD: 7 APRIL 2011
DELIVERED : 4 JULY 2011
FILE NO/S: CACR 46 of 2010
BETWEEN: DEJAN MEDAN
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :JENKINS J
File No :INS 20 of 2009
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug, namely MDMA - Quantity a commercial quantity - Appellant sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years 6 months - Parity principle - Whether appellant denied procedural fairness at the sentencing hearing - Sentencing discounts for early pleas of guilty to federal offences - Whether head sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.5(1), s 302.1(c), s 307.1(1)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1, 2, 6 and 7
Leave to appeal refused on grounds 3, 4, 5 and 8
Appeal allowed
Appellant re-sentenced
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant: Mr T F Percy QC
Respondent: Ms G A Archer SC
Solicitors:
Appellant: Mirko Bagaric Lawyers
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Billing v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 11
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 273 ALR 324
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49; (2009) 240 CLR 319
Jardim v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 83
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193
Ljuboja v The Queen [2011] WASCA 143
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606
Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605
Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115; (2008) 37 WAR 149
Moody v French [2008] WASCA 67; (2008) 36 WAR 393
P v The Queen [2003] WASCA 180
Pedersen v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 175
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Bugeja [2001] NSWCCA 196
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151
R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342; (2006) 167 A Crim R 436
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1
Thom v The Queen [2001] WASCA 322; (2001) 126 A Crim R 196
PULLIN JA: I agree with Buss JA.
BUSS JA: On 3 September 2009, the appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court before Jenkins J, on his plea of guilty, on one count in an indictment.
Continue reading Medan v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Medan v The Queen [2011] WASCA 142
- Case
- [2011] WASCA 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether procedural fairness was observed during the sentencing hearing. Medan and the Crown had filed and served written submissions prior to the hearing, with the Crown accepting that Medan's role in the offending was less than that of other co-conspirators but still of great importance. During the hearing, counsel for both parties made extensive submissions, with the Crown acknowledging Medan's junior role but still emphasising its significance. The sentencing judge later recognised the importance of Medan's role, aligning it with that of other co-conspirators, as evidenced by the discount given for his early plea and the absence of substantial commerciality in his sentence compared to others.
The Full Court concluded that the sentencing judge had indeed recognised Medan's significant role in the conspiracy, despite his lower position in the hierarchy. The court found that procedural fairness was observed and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Full Court upheld the sentence imposed by the primary judge.
The Full Court made no order altering the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Fairness is essentially a practical concept. It is not abstract in nature. The law of procedural fairness is concerned to avoid practical injustice. See Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 [37] (Gleeson CJ). The requirements of procedural fairness are flexible. Proceedings where procedural fairness must be accorded may be organised to ensure fairness having regard to the nature and circumstances of the particular proceeding, including the relevant facts, the statutory context, the matters in dispute, the circumstances of the particular parties whose interests may be affected, and the legal representation of parties before the relevant body or tribunal. See Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115; (2008) 37 WAR 149 [56] (Buss JA). The appellant and the Crown filed and served written submissions before the hearing of his plea in mitigation on 26 October 2009. The Crown's written submissions dated 22 October 2009 said that the appellant's role in the offending 'is accepted as being a lesser one than' the role of Mr Ljuboja, Mr Quaid and Mr Papadimitriou [23]. The submissions asserted elsewhere, however, that the appellant's role was nevertheless 'paramount to the success of the conspiracy and of great importance to' Mr Ljuboja [19]. The appellant's written submissions dated 23 October 2009 asserted that the appellant's role 'in the overall transaction is at the bottom of the hierarchy' [18]. At the hearing on 26 October 2009, counsel representing the Crown and counsel for the appellant made extensive oral submissions. Counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant was 'definitely at the bottom of the hierarchy' (ts 228). Counsel representing the Crown said that the appellant's offending was 'extremely serious'. She added that 'his role was as a lesser player but no less an essential player in the operation' (ts 255). She noted that 'even the lesser players are important because without them these offences cannot be carried through to fruition' (ts 256). Later, however, in her submissions, counsel representing the Crown said:It is accepted that this offender was at a lower level than his co‑conspirators but it does not necessarily put him at the level of, as it were, the hired help, just simply moving some stuff from the pallets to the van or carrying a small parcel from X location to Y location. The involvement of this offender, we would say, was of ‑ at a significant level, although not as significant as that of the others. He clearly was, your Honour, obviously, in chronological terms, the most junior member and, as I think earlier on we quote, or I quoted from one of the calls where he is referred to as 'the boy'. My recollection is he's also referred as 'the young one' in other exchanges (ts 257 ‑ 258). (emphasis added) In my opinion, the sentencing judge's observation about her realisation of the importance of the appellant's role, made during her sentencing remarks on 23 March 2010, was, in substance, a finding that the appellant's objective criminality (as measured by his role in the conspiracy) was similar to that of Mr Quaid and Mr Papadimitriou. This is confirmed by the extent of the discount given to the appellant for his early plea, the matter referred to at pars 8 ‑ 17 of his written submissions to her Honour and the absence of substantial commerciality, as embodied in his head sentence and non‑parole period, compared to the head sentences and non‑parole periods of Mr Quaid and Mr Papadimitriou.