MISHAL -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 328
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 328 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:89/2001 | 2 OCTOBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J ROBERTS-SMITH J | 26/10/01 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed Application for leave to re-open appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BASIL MOHD MISHAL THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Drug offences Whether sentence is so severe so as to be a mis-exercise of a sentencing judge's discretion Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Application for leave to re-open appeal Whether application raises cogent grounds sufficient to justify re-opening of appeal |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1991 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 34 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6 |
Case References: | Bellisimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd [No 1] (1981) 147 CLR 246 De L v Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services [No 2] (1997) 190 CLR 207 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1538; (2000) 115 A Crim R 558 House v The King 1936) 55 CLR 499 James v The Queen (1985) 14 A Crim R 364 Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mantini (1997) 95 A Crim R 33 Marchesano (2000) 116 A Crim R 237 Marchesano v The Queen [2000] WASCA 225 Minchinton v The Queen (1998) 104 A Crim R 502 P (1992) 39 FCR 276 Shooter (1997) 97 A Crim R 581 Watt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 354 Calder; unreported, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960534; 11 September 1996 Darwell v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Dunn (1986) 32 A Crim R 203 Ibbs (1987) 163 CLR 447 Kelly v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950245; 19 May 1995 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 Sanori Developments Pty Ltd v Raven, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950673; 7 December 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MISHAL -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 328 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- TEMPLEMAN J
ROBERTS-SMITH J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Drug offences - Whether sentence is so severe so as to be a mis-exercise of a sentencing judge's discretion
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Application for leave to re-open appeal - Whether application raises cogent grounds sufficient to justify re-opening of appeal
Legislation:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1991 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 34
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Application for leave to re-open appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Continue reading Mishal v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Mishal v The Queen [2001] WASCA 328
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 328
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mishal v The Queen involved the appellant who appealed against a sentence imposed for drug-related offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contested the severity of the sentence, arguing it was a mis-exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion. Additionally, the appellant sought leave to re-open the appeal, contending that new grounds existed which warranted reconsideration of the original appeal.
The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was so severe as to constitute an error in the exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion and whether the application to re-open the appeal presented cogent grounds warranting reconsideration. The court needed to determine if the appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant re-opening the appeal, as well as evaluate the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
The court held that the sentence was within the range of acceptable outcomes for the offences committed and did not constitute a mis-exercise of discretion. Furthermore, the court found that the grounds presented in the application to re-open the appeal were not cogent enough to justify reconsideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to re-open the appeal was also dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to re-open the appeal was dismissed. The sentence originally imposed by the lower court remained in place, and the appellant's challenges to the sentence were not upheld.
The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was so severe as to constitute an error in the exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion and whether the application to re-open the appeal presented cogent grounds warranting reconsideration. The court needed to determine if the appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant re-opening the appeal, as well as evaluate the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
The court held that the sentence was within the range of acceptable outcomes for the offences committed and did not constitute a mis-exercise of discretion. Furthermore, the court found that the grounds presented in the application to re-open the appeal were not cogent enough to justify reconsideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to re-open the appeal was also dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to re-open the appeal was dismissed. The sentence originally imposed by the lower court remained in place, and the appellant's challenges to the sentence were not upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Application for leave to re-open 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.