Legal Research
Cases
Nelson v Quinn

Nelson v Quinn

Case [2001] WASCA 297 27 September 2001

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: NELSON -v- QUINN [2001] WASCA 297

CORAM: McLURE J

HEARD: 13 JUNE & 29 JUNE 2001

DELIVERED : 27 SEPTEMBER 2001

FILE NO/S: SJA 1038 of 2001

BETWEEN: ED WYNN NELSON
Appellant
AND
WENDY LORRAINE QUINN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Customs Act 1901 s 233(1)(a), s 234(1)(a), s 234(1)(d)(i) - Offences of smuggling, evasion and making false and misleading statements - Whether appropriate to discharge under s 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Review under s 186(1)(b) of the Justices Act - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19B

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233, s 234, s 237

Justices Act 1902, s 186(1)(b), s 192, s 196(1)(b)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr A O Karstaedt
Respondent: Mr A A Jenshel

Solicitors:

Appellant: Max Crispe
Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

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

Barendse v Comp-General (Customs) (1996) 93 A Crim R 210
Bushnell v Adams (1995) 30 ATR 78
CEO of Customs v Tonmill Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 77
Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257
Dickman v Turton [2000] WASCA 1
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
L Vogel & Son Pty Ltd v Anderson (1968) 120 CLR 157
Lanham v Brake (1983) 52 ALR 351
McQuestin (1993) 69 A Crim R 522
O'Brien v M R Norton‑Smith Pty Ltd (1995) 31 ATR 128
O'Sullivan v Wilkinson [1952] SASR 213
R v Allsop (1976) 64 Cr App R 29
R v Matijevic [1997] FCA 992
Stitt v CBI Constructors Pty Ltd (1990) 5 WAR 427
Tan v R (1979) WAR 149
Ulf Weller (1988) 37 A Crim R 349
Uznanski v Searle (1981) 26 SASR 388
Wilson v Chambers & Co Pty Ltd (1926) 38 CLR 131

Case(s) also cited:

Anderson v Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970504; 3 October 1997
Beavan v Rankine (1983) 36 SASR 120
Chow v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 593
Chullani v CEO of Customs, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960660; 15 November 1996
Comptroller-General of Customs v Grills (1992) 110 FLR 431
Di Camillo v Wilcox [1964] WAR 44
Ex parte Freeman (1951) 68 WN (NSW) 11
Hayes v Weller (1988) 50 SASR 136
Jones v McDonald, unreported; SCt of WA; Library 980039; 6 February 1998
Kelly v JCT Wong & Rizoli Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of NSW; 24 July 1999
Kelton v Uren (1981) 27 SASR 92
Kowald v Hoile (No 2) (1976) 14 SASR 314
Lanham v Brambles-Ruys (1984) 55 ALR 138
Ludwigs Canberra Bond Cellar Pty Ltd v Sheen (1982) 65 FLR 347
Matta v ACCC [2000] FCA 729
McInnes v Global Imports Pty Ltd (1993) 15 ATPR 41-206
Nisbet v Fullarton, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 930265; 14 May 1993
Paterson v Fenwick (1994) 115 FLR 462
Punch v R (1993) 9 WAR 486
Purdey (1992) 65 A Crim R 441

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 Nelson v Quinn

Details

AGLC: Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297
Case: [2001] WASCA 297
Decision Date: 27 SEPTEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Nelson versus Quinn, the respondent, Nelson, sought judicial review of a decision by Quinn, the primary decision-maker, to impose a custodial sentence of 12 months imprisonment on the applicant for various offences under the Customs Act 1901. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant was found guilty of smuggling, evasion, and making false and misleading statements, and the primary decision-maker exercised his discretion to impose a custodial sentence. The respondent argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be quashed, and sought an order discharging him from the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and therefore outside the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for the offences in question. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and whether the primary decision-maker had taken into account all relevant factors in imposing the sentence. The respondent argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should be quashed, and sought an order discharging him from the sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the primary decision-maker had taken into account all relevant factors in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and that the primary decision-maker had exercised his discretion lawfully and reasonably. The court found that the primary decision-maker had appropriately considered the applicant's offending, his background, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in imposing the sentence. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary decision-maker was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court dismissed the respondent's application for judicial review and affirmed the sentence imposed.

Orders