Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Manufacturing amphetamines - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply it to another (two counts) - Diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder - Whether causal connection between disorder and offending behaviour - Effect of disorder on sentence - Principles discussed - Sentences of 2-1/2 years and 1 year on counts of possessing methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply to another, to be served concurrently - Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment on count of manufacturing amphetamines, to be served cumulatively upon previous sentences
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M T Trowell QC & Mr G W Massey
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Applicant : Fiocco Hopkins Nash
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Hawkins v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970194; 1 May 1997
Walsh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960471; 26 August 1996
"Y" (A Child) v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980402; 23 July 1998
KENNEDY J: I…
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 Paparone v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127
Case
[2000] WASCA 127
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was convicted of two counts of possessing methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply it to another and one count of manufacturing amphetamines. The issue before the court was whether the appellant's attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was a mitigating factor in his sentencing. The court had to determine whether there was a causal connection between the disorder and the offending behaviour and whether the disorder should be taken into account when determining the sentence. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence for each count.
The court held that while the appellant's ADHD was a relevant mitigating factor, it was not the sole cause of his offending behaviour. The court found that the appellant's criminal conduct was the result of a combination of factors, including his ADHD, his drug addiction, and his desire to obtain funds to support his drug habit. The court also found that the appellant's ADHD did not significantly impair his capacity for self-control or his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The court held that the appellant's ADHD was a relevant mitigating factor, but it was not sufficient to reduce the severity of the sentence.
The court sentenced the appellant to 2-1/2 years' imprisonment on each count of possessing methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply it to another, to be served concurrently, and 3 years' imprisonment on the count of manufacturing amphetamines, to be served cumulatively upon the previous sentences. The court held that the sentences should reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also held that the sentences should be proportionate to the appellant's culpability and the harm caused by his offending behaviour. The court held that the sentences were appropriate in all the circumstances.