NELL -v- THE QUEEN [2014] WASCA 193
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 193 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:25/2014 | 8 OCTOBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 28/10/14 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : NELL -v- THE QUEEN [2014] WASCA 193 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : KEEN DCJ
File No : IND 341 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Totality
Legislation:
Criminal Code (Cth), s 302.4(1), s 307.2(1)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms K J Farley SC
Respondent : Mr H C Quail
Solicitors:
Appellant : Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bond v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 123
Galbraith v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 70
Iyoha v The Queen [2011] WASCA 46
Kitis v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 34
Lai v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 181
Lam v The Queen [2014] WASCA 114
Mousavi v The Queen [2014] WASCA 174
Neumann v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 70
Penney v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 71
Pham v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 244
R v Nell [2014] WADC 1
R v Ng [2012] WASCA 180
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Ruvinovski v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 204
Tanner v The State of Western Australia…
Continue reading Nell v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Nell v The Queen [2014] WASCA 193
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 193
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Nell v The Queen, the respondent was convicted of a series of offences and sentenced to a total of 16 years imprisonment. The High Court of Australia heard an appeal against the sentence, with the primary focus being on whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the principles of totality in sentencing. The appeal was lodged on the basis that the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences for separate but related offences was unduly harsh.
The legal issue before the Court was whether the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences for separate but related offences, which together imposed a severe penalty, contravened the principle of totality in sentencing. This principle requires that the overall punishment should not be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offender's criminal conduct. The Court had to determine if the total sentence imposed was justified under the circumstances, considering the cumulative effect of the sentences.
The Court concluded that the sentence was not disproportionate or excessive. It found that the trial judge had carefully considered the principle of totality and had taken into account the need to ensure that the punishment reflected the seriousness of the offences. The Court was satisfied that the judge had balanced the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in arriving at the sentence. The Court held that the sentence did not contravene the principle of totality and dismissed the appeal.
The legal issue before the Court was whether the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences for separate but related offences, which together imposed a severe penalty, contravened the principle of totality in sentencing. This principle requires that the overall punishment should not be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offender's criminal conduct. The Court had to determine if the total sentence imposed was justified under the circumstances, considering the cumulative effect of the sentences.
The Court concluded that the sentence was not disproportionate or excessive. It found that the trial judge had carefully considered the principle of totality and had taken into account the need to ensure that the punishment reflected the seriousness of the offences. The Court was satisfied that the judge had balanced the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in arriving at the sentence. The Court held that the sentence did not contravene the principle of totality and dismissed the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.