MUSTAFA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 243
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 243 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:209/1998 | 31 JULY 2002 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J STEYTLER J | 4/09/02 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of 6 years reduced to 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ABIB MUSTAFA THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Drug offences Attempting to obtain possession of a prohibited import Amphetamine also known as "MDMA" or "Ecstasy" being not less than a commercial quantity Plea of guilty Parity Offender a foreign national |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(a), s 235 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AB Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 108 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 95 |
Case References: | Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65 Cameron v The Queen [2002] WASCA 81 Diefenbach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 4 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Hodder v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 264 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 192 Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 397 R v Tate and Barkley (1979) 46 FLR 386 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254; (2001) 122 A Crim R 559 Robertson (1989) 44 A Crim R 224 Ruvinovski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 398 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MUSTAFA -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 243 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MURRAY J
STEYTLER J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Drug offences - Attempting to obtain possession of a prohibited import - Amphetamine also known as "MDMA" or "Ecstasy" being not less than a commercial quantity - Plea of guilty - Parity - Offender a foreign national
Legislation:
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(a), s 235
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AB
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 108
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 95
(Page 2)
Result:
Sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of 6 years reduced to 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D Grace QC & Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Mr H G Dembo
Solicitors:
Appellant : Laurie Levy
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65
Cameron v The Queen [2002] WASCA 81
Diefenbach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 4
Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135
Hodder v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 264
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 192
Punevski v The…
Continue reading Mustafa v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Mustafa v The Queen [2002] WASCA 243
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 243
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Mustafa v The Queen, the defendant, Mustafa, pleaded guilty to attempting to obtain possession of a prohibited import, specifically a commercial quantity of amphetamine, also known as "MDMA" or "Ecstasy". The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the need to maintain parity with similar cases.
The court was tasked with weighing several factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's role in the crime, and his personal circumstances. The court noted that the quantity of amphetamine involved was substantial and indicative of a commercial operation. Furthermore, the defendant, being a foreign national, added another layer of complexity to the sentencing decision. The court considered the principle of parity, ensuring that the sentence would be consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.
In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the severity of the offence and the defendant's involvement in a large-scale drug importation attempt. However, it also considered the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a reduction of the proposed sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years, later reduced to 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. This decision reflects a balanced approach that recognises the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account mitigating factors.
The court was tasked with weighing several factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's role in the crime, and his personal circumstances. The court noted that the quantity of amphetamine involved was substantial and indicative of a commercial operation. Furthermore, the defendant, being a foreign national, added another layer of complexity to the sentencing decision. The court considered the principle of parity, ensuring that the sentence would be consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.
In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the severity of the offence and the defendant's involvement in a large-scale drug importation attempt. However, it also considered the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a reduction of the proposed sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years, later reduced to 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. This decision reflects a balanced approach that recognises the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account mitigating factors.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of 6 years reduced to 10 years
and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months
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.