"P" -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 180

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 180
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:153/2001	Heard:	17 JULY 2003
Coram:	MURRAY ACJ ANDERSON J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	13/08/03
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	"P" THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Whether sentencing Judge erred in imposing minimum term of twothirds of head term Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 689(3) Customs Act 1901, s 233B Sentencing Act 1995, s 95
Case References:	"X" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Thom (2001) 126 A Crim R 196 B (A Child) v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950482; 15 August 1995 Boxtel v The Queen [1994] 2 VR 98 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383 Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 160 FLR 216 R v Atholwood (1999) 109 A Crim R 465 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v El Karhani (1990) 51 A Crim R 123 R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141 R v Paunovic (1990) 51 A Crim R 174 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 Radebe v The Queen (2001) 162 FLR 313 Thompson v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1319

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : "P" -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 180 CORAM : MURRAY ACJ

ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 17 JULY 2003 DELIVERED : 13 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 153 of 2001 BETWEEN : "P"

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Whether sentencing Judge erred in imposing minimum term of twothirds of head term - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 689(3)

Customs Act 1901, s 233B
Sentencing Act 1995, s 95

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

"X" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Thom (2001) 126 A Crim R 196

Case(s) also cited:

B (A Child) v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950482; 15 August 1995
Boxtel v The Queen [1994] 2 VR 98
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135
Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383
Nguyen v The Queen (2001) 160 FLR…

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 "P" v The Queen

Details

AGLC: "P" v The Queen [2003] WASCA 180
Case: [2003] WASCA 180
Decision Date: 13 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the appellant, "P", sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge, challenging the decision to set a minimum term of two-thirds of the head term. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the sentencing Judge had erred in this aspect of the sentence.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing Judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the imposition of the minimum term of two-thirds of the head term. The appellant contended that the sentence was excessive and that the Judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors in the case. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the Judge had correctly applied the law.

The court found that the sentencing Judge had not erred in imposing the minimum term of two-thirds of the head term. The court held that the Judge had properly considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the law. The court also found that the sentence was not excessive, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. The court therefore refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.