PARRY -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 222
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 222 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:64/2002 | 2 MAY, 3 JUNE & 11 SEPTEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J MCKECHNIE J | 18/09/03 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN PARRY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Drug importation Heroin 224.4 grams pure Trafficable quantity Sentence of 10 years with non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months affirmed Parity Weight to be given to personal circumstances Health considerations Hepatitis C Fresh evidence as to effect of incarceration Admissibility Principles |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16(2)(p) Criminal Procedure Rules 2000, Sch 1, Sch 7 Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(d) Pharmaceutical Benefits Act |
Case References: | Anderson v The Queen (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383 Li v The Queen [2000] WASCA 340 Ngyuen v The Queen [2001] WASCA 119 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 R v Bailey (1988) 34 A Crim R 154 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Eliasen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391 R v O’Shea (1982) 8 A Crim R 219 R v Peel (1971) 1 NSWLR 247 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 R v Thom (2001) 126 A Crim R 196 R v W (2002) 129 A Crim R 400 R v WEF [1998] 2 VR 385 Soh v The Queen [2003] WASCA 29 X v The Queen [2000] WASCA 355 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65 Ferrua (1919) 14 Cr App R 39 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 Linou v Haynes (1988) 47 SASR 172 Lowndes v The Queen 195 CLR 665 R v Baldwin [2001] NSWCCA 320 R v Benham (2000) 111 A Crim R 302 R v Boxtel (1994) 2 VR 98 R v Clarke (1996) 2 VR 520 R v Dorning (1981) SASR 481 R v Dowe, unreported; NSWCCA; BC9505319; 1 September 1995 R v Geoghegan [2000] NSWCCA 93 R v Henry (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 R v Kogelbauer (1992) 65 A Crim R 357 R v Maarbani [2001] NSWCCA 509 R v MacGowan (1986) 42 SASR 580 R v McCourt (1993) 69 A Crim R 151 R v McDonald (1988) 38 A Crim R 470 R v Mitchell (2000) 112 A Crim R 315 R v Morgan (1996) 87 A Crim R 104 R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141 R v Olbrich (1999) 166 ALR 330 R v Peuna, unreported; NSWCCA; BC9203094; 23 July 1992 R v Santamaria [2001] SASC 391 R v Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313 |
Continue reading Parry v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Parry v The Queen [2003] WASCA 222
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 222
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of Australia, the case of Parry v The Queen involved a defendant convicted of importing a substantial quantity of heroin, specifically 224.4 grams of pure heroin. The primary issue before the court was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, which was 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing court had not given sufficient consideration to his personal circumstances and health conditions, including his diagnosis of Hepatitis C. The court also considered the admissibility of fresh evidence presented by the defendant regarding the impact of incarceration on his health.
The High Court examined the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the need for parity in sentencing and the weight to be given to personal circumstances. The court assessed whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the gravity of the offence with the defendant's personal factors. Additionally, the court reviewed the admissibility of fresh evidence provided by the defendant, which highlighted the detrimental effects of incarceration on his health. The court had to determine if this evidence warranted a re-evaluation of the sentence.
In its decision, the High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his health conditions, in determining the sentence. The court also held that the fresh evidence, while relevant, did not alter the overall assessment of the appropriate sentence. The principles of parity and the gravity of the offence were deemed to have been appropriately balanced by the original sentencing judge. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
The High Court examined the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the need for parity in sentencing and the weight to be given to personal circumstances. The court assessed whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the gravity of the offence with the defendant's personal factors. Additionally, the court reviewed the admissibility of fresh evidence provided by the defendant, which highlighted the detrimental effects of incarceration on his health. The court had to determine if this evidence warranted a re-evaluation of the sentence.
In its decision, the High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his health conditions, in determining the sentence. The court also held that the fresh evidence, while relevant, did not alter the overall assessment of the appropriate sentence. The principles of parity and the gravity of the offence were deemed to have been appropriately balanced by the original sentencing judge. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal dismissed
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.