NOBLE -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 83

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 83
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:12/2003	Heard:	2 APRIL 2003
Coram:	MURRAY J SCOTT J WHEELER J	Delivered:	2/04/03
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL NOBLE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Commercial cultivation of cannabis using hydroponics Whether sentence manifestly excessive Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Case References:	Day v The Queen [2001] WASCA 284; (2001) 127 A Crim R 403 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NOBLE -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 83 CORAM : MURRAY J

SCOTT J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 2 APRIL 2003 DELIVERED : 2 APRIL 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 12 of 2003 BETWEEN : MICHAEL NOBLE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Commercial cultivation of cannabis using hydroponics - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms A G Braddock SC & Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Mr A D Hills-Wright

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning Young

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Day v The Queen [2001] WASCA 284; (2001) 127 A Crim R 403
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: I shall ask Wheeler J to give her Honour's decision first.

2 WHEELER J: The applicant was convicted on 13 December last year by a jury after trial on two counts of cultivation of a prohibited plant, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply to another. He was acquitted of one count of possession of a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply but convicted of simple possession of that drug.

3 The circumstances of those offences were that in July 2001 police executed a search warrant under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act at the applicant's house, where they located 48 cannabis plants growing hydroponically in a spare bedroom cupboard. The plants were between 15 and 25 centimetres in height. They are the ones referred in count 1.

4 A further search of premises in Greenwood revealed 36 cannabis plants growing hydroponically in one of the rooms. They were between 90 and 125 centimetres in height, so significantly more advanced than the others, and are the subject of count 2. In that house, the applicant had set up lights, extractor fans, piping and reflective sheeting in the room in which the plants were growing and had set up a further…

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 Noble v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Noble v The Queen [2003] WASCA 83
Case: [2003] WASCA 83
Decision Date: 2 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noble v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted and sentenced for his involvement in the commercial cultivation of cannabis using hydroponics. The appellant applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The Court considered the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the relevant statutory provisions and case law in making its decision.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The Court needed to assess whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's role in the commercial cultivation of cannabis, as well as the factors relevant to the offence and the principles of sentencing. The Court was required to consider the appellant's culpability, the seriousness of the offence, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Court also needed to examine the sentence in relation to other cases involving similar offences, to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The Court concluded that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The Court found that the appellant's role in the commercial cultivation of cannabis was significant, but also noted that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's culpability. The Court considered the relevant principles of sentencing and the statutory provisions governing the offence. The Court also examined the sentences imposed in similar cases, and determined that the sentence in this case was not manifestly excessive. As a result, the Court refused the appellant's application for special leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.