Pinkstone v The Queen

Case [2003] WASCA 66


PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 66



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2003] WASCA 66
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:2/200212 & 13 NOVEMBER 2002
Coram:MURRAY J
WHEELER J
ROLFE AJ
28/03/03
45Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave granted to appeal against sentence
Appeal allowed
Sentences varied to provide for parole eligibility
A
PDF Version
Parties:ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Conviction of supply of methylamphetamine and attempt to supply cocaine
Supply intercepted by police
Whether drug supplied to ultimate recipient
Application of rule in Browne v Dunn
Use of evidence of disguise
Admissibility of evidence by telephone conversations between third parties
Words and phrases
"Supply" of prohibited drugs
Sentence
Validity of declaration that applicant a drug trafficker
Whether aggregate term manifestly excessive
Totality
Parity
Eligibility for parole
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 3(1), s 6(1)

Case References:

Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50
Birks v The Queen (1990) 48 A Crim R 385
Brazier v The Queen [2002] WASCA 278
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 Rep 67
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 1552
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Manisco v The Queen (1995) 14 WAR 303
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pinkstone v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950088; 3 March 1995
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210
R v Chick (2000) 114 A Crim R 417
R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Pelham (1995) 82 A Crim R 455
R v Pinkstone (2001) 24 WAR 406
R v Powell (2001) 81 SASR 9
R v Suarez-Mejia [2002] WASCA 187
R v White [2002] WASCA 112
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387
Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283
White v Ridley (1978) 140 CLR 342
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1983) 1 NSWLR 1
Atholwood v R [2000] WASCA 76
Attorney-General (SA) v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Bulstrode v Trimble [1970] VR 840
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382
Garlett v R [2000] WASCA 72
Gavin v R (1992) 6 WAR 195
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kauhanen v R [1999] WASCA 14
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) CLR 665
Mill v The Queen (1988)166 CLR 59
Mitchell v R, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960730A; 18…

Continue reading Pinkstone v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pinkstone v The Queen [2003] WASCA 66
Case
[2003] WASCA 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pinkstone was convicted of supplying methylamphetamine and attempting to supply cocaine, with the transactions intercepted by police. The central issue in this appeal was whether the drugs were supplied to the ultimate recipient, which would constitute an offence under Australian law. The appeal also addressed the admissibility of evidence from third-party telephone conversations and the use of a disguise during the transaction, which fell under the rule in Browne v Dunn. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the declaration that Pinkstone was a drug trafficker was valid.

The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had proven the supply of methylamphetamine and the attempt to supply cocaine. The use of the disguise and the intercepted communications were deemed admissible, as they did not prejudice the fairness of the trial. The court further concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and that the declaration regarding Pinkstone's status as a drug trafficker was valid. However, the appeal succeeded in varying the sentences to ensure parole eligibility for Pinkstone.

In conclusion, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but leave was granted to appeal against the sentence. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentences were varied to provide for parole eligibility. The court's decision highlights the importance of proper evidence admissibility and the need for sentences to be proportionate and just.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Leave granted to appeal against sentence

Appeal allowed

Sentences varied to provide for parole eligibility

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.