MMA -v- THE QUEEN [2015] WASCA 177

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 177
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:212/2014	Heard:	7 AUGUST 2015
Coram:	McLURE P MAZZA JA	Delivered:	2/09/15
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MMA THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Drug offences Application for leave to appeal against sentence Total effective sentence 8 years 8 months' imprisonment Totality
Legislation:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40(1) Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.1(1), s 11.2A, s 302.3(1), s 307.2(1)
Case References:	Cavill v The Queen [2014] WASCA 77 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Baldock [2010] WASCA 170; (2010) 203 A Crim R 214 R v Lee [2013] WASCA 216 Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MMA -v- THE QUEEN [2015] WASCA 177 CORAM : McLURE P

MAZZA JA

HEARD : 7 AUGUST 2015 DELIVERED : 2 SEPTEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CACR 212 of 2014 BETWEEN : MMA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : DCJ X

File No : IND x of 2014

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offences - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Total effective sentence 8 years 8 months' imprisonment - Totality

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40(1)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.1(1), s 11.2A, s 302.3(1), s 307.2(1)

Result:

Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr H Sklarz

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Sklarz Lawyers

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Cavill v The Queen [2014] WASCA 77
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Baldock [2010] WASCA 170; (2010) 203 A Crim R 214
R v Lee [2013] WASCA 216
Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17

1 McLURE P: I agree with Mazza JA.

2 MAZZA JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 26 March 2014, the appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, by way of a joint criminal enterprise contrary to s 307.2(1) and s 11.2A of the Criminal Code (Cth) (the Criminal Code) (counts 1 and 4), two counts of attempting to import a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, by way of a joint criminal…

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 MMA v The Queen

Details

AGLC: MMA v The Queen [2015] WASCA 177
Case: [2015] WASCA 177
Decision Date: 2 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MMA v The Queen involved the appellant who was convicted and sentenced to a total effective sentence of 8 years and 8 months' imprisonment for multiple drug-related offences. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, contending that it was excessive and disproportionate. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the appeal should be heard and whether the sentence was indeed excessive.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's total effective sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The appellant argued that the cumulative sentence was disproportionately harsh and failed to adequately consider the principles of totality and proportionality. The Court also needed to examine whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offences with the principles of sentencing.

The High Court found that the appellant's total effective sentence, while lengthy, was not manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing, but concluded that the trial judge had appropriately considered these principles in determining the sentence. The Court found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application to adduce additional evidence, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed

Leave to appeal refused

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.