Appeal against sentence - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Early guilty plea - Whether discount apparent - Whether totality taken into account

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J McGrath
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Appellant: Michael Tudori
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bellisimo v The Queen (1996) A Crim R 464
Cameron v The Queen [2000] WASCA 286
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201

MURRAY J: I shall invite Templeman J to give judgment first in this matter.
TEMPLEMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was charged on an indictment containing two counts that on 7 November 2003 he had in his possession a prohibited drug, namely 3,4 methylenedioxy‑n alpha‑dimethylphenylethylamine, MDMA, with intent to sell or supply it to another and in the second count that at the same date and the same place he had in his possession another prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply it to another. The applicant pleaded guilty on the fast-track system - that is, at the earliest opportunity - and he was sentenced on 20 April this year.
The facts were recited to the learned sentencing Judge, who was told that the offences were discovered in the execution of a search warrant at the applicant's home address. That search located 53.85 grams of MDMA tablets, being 247 tablets in total. They were concealed beneath the applicant's bedside cabinet. A further search revealed that there were 64.48 grams of methylamphetamine in different locations and the applicant's wallet was found to contain $3150 in cash, which he claimed a friend had lent to him. Also discovered in the search was a set of electronic weighing scales, a large quantity of plastic resealable bags and a notebook containing drug-related notations.
The applicant was interviewed at the time. He said the money belonged to him but the drugs were not his, that he did not know where they came from and he did not know whose they were.
The applicant was in breach of parole when he was apprehended and he had 987 parole days to serve. That is nearly three years. There was also a section 32 notice relating to a quantity of ammunition, some 306 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition, which the applicant had. That was an offence because he was not in possession of an…

Details

AGLC: Olomi v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 304
Case: [2004] WASCA 304
Decision Date: 20 SEPTEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Olomi v The State of Western Australia involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Olomi, who had been convicted of possessing methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The appellant had entered an early guilty plea, which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 2 years and 6 months. The appeal was brought against the severity of the sentence, questioning whether the discount for the early guilty plea was sufficiently apparent and whether the totality principle was adequately considered by the sentencing court.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the discount for the appellant's early guilty plea was appropriately reflected in the sentence and whether the court had adequately applied the totality principle when considering the cumulative effect of the sentence and any other penalties imposed. The appellant argued that the sentence was unduly harsh, given the substantial discount that should have resulted from his early guilty plea. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentencing court had not sufficiently taken into account the totality of the penalties and the circumstances surrounding the offence when imposing the sentence.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the weight to be given to the early guilty plea discount, noting that the appellant's guilty plea did result in a reduced sentence. However, the court found that the discount applied was not as significant as the appellant suggested. The court also considered the totality principle, which requires the court to ensure that the overall punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. In assessing the totality, the court looked at the appellant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offence, and the impact of the drug on the community. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the totality principle and the discount for the early guilty plea.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the discount for the early guilty plea was adequately considered and that the totality principle had been appropriately applied in the sentencing process. The sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months was considered to be proportionate to the offence and the appellant's circumstances.

Orders