NORRIS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 68
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 68 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:189/2000 | 15 FEBRUARY 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ KENNEDY J STEYTLER J | 14/03/01 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Leave to appeal against sentence granted Appeal against sentence allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER DEREK NORRIS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against conviction for supply of drug known as "Fantasy" Admissibility of evidence of prior dealings with "Fantasy" Whether probative value exceeds potential prejudice Whether probative value affected by fact that evidence came from accomplice Direction to jury regarding use of propensity evidence adequate Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Whether trial Judge erred in taking account of other related offences which did not result in charges Seriousness of drug "Fantasy" considered Consideration of parity principle Differing circumstances as between applicant and co-offenders Sentence reduced from 6 years to 4 years imprisonment with eligibility for parole |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 34(1) Sentencing Act 1995, s 7(3) |
Case References: | BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 Koushappis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 18 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510 R v Bright [1916] 2 KB 441 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Diefenbach (1999) 108 A Crim R 19 R v Huchison [1972] 1 WLR 398 R v Jurkovic (1981) 6 A Crim R 215 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Atholwood v The Queen [2000] WASCA 76 B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 Christianos v The Queen [2000] WASCA 184 Cook v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 67 Corrigan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980700; 17 November 1998 Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195 Giowkos v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980224; 5 May 1998 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Melbourne v R (1999) 164 ALR 465 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210 R v Krakouer (1999) 107 A Crim R 408 R v Olbrich (1999) 73 ALJR 1550 R v Rahme (1991) 53 A Crim R 8 R v Robertson (1989) 44 A Crim R 224 R v Ruich [2000] WASCA 84 R v Tektonopoulos (1999) 106 A Crim R 111 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NORRIS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 68 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- KENNEDY J
STEYTLER J
- CCA 197 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Continue reading Norris v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Norris v The Queen [2001] WASCA 68
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Norris v The Queen involved the appellant, Norris, who was appealing against his conviction for the supply of a drug known as "Fantasy." The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The main issues in this case revolved around the admissibility of evidence related to prior dealings with the drug "Fantasy" and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge.
The court had to determine whether the evidence of prior dealings with the drug "Fantasy" was admissible and whether its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice. The court also considered whether the fact that the evidence came from an accomplice affected its probative value. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the use of propensity evidence was adequate. The court found that the evidence was admissible and that the trial judge's direction was sufficient.
The court also addressed the issue of whether the trial judge erred in taking into account other related offences that did not result in charges when determining the sentence. The court considered the seriousness of the drug "Fantasy," the parity principle, and the differing circumstances between the applicant and his co-offenders. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in taking into account the other related offences. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessive and reduced it from six years to four years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after two years.
The court had to determine whether the evidence of prior dealings with the drug "Fantasy" was admissible and whether its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice. The court also considered whether the fact that the evidence came from an accomplice affected its probative value. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the use of propensity evidence was adequate. The court found that the evidence was admissible and that the trial judge's direction was sufficient.
The court also addressed the issue of whether the trial judge erred in taking into account other related offences that did not result in charges when determining the sentence. The court considered the seriousness of the drug "Fantasy," the parity principle, and the differing circumstances between the applicant and his co-offenders. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in taking into account the other related offences. However, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessive and reduced it from six years to four years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after two years.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal against sentence allowed
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.