POOLE -v- R [1999] WASCA 46

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 46
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:10/1999	Heard:	1 APRIL 1999
Coram:	PIDGEON J WALLWORK J WHEELER J	Delivered:	9/06/99
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal sentence refused
PDF Version

Parties:	WAYNE EDWIN POOLE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal Law Sentence Whether representative counts can be charged under Criminal Code Whether permissible to sentence for uncharged offences Cultivation of cannabis Sale of cannabis Nature of criminal operation
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 s 34(2)
Case References:	Cooksley [1982] Qd R 405 H (1981) 3 A Crim R 53 Kennedy, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 3 April 1998 Marchesano 61 A Crim R 372 Stol (1989) 44 A Crim R 137 Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606, 12 A Crim R 408 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : POOLE -v- R [1999] WASCA 46 CORAM : PIDGEON J

WALLWORK J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 1 APRIL 1999 DELIVERED : 9 JUNE 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 10 of 1999 BETWEEN : WAYNE EDWIN POOLE

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Sentence - Whether representative counts can be charged under Criminal Code - Whether permissible to sentence for uncharged offences - Cultivation of cannabis - Sale of cannabis - Nature of criminal operation

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 s 34(2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal sentence refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr K F Sleight

Respondent : Ms G A Archer

Solicitors:

Applicant : Mayberry Hammond & Co

Respondent : Acting State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cooksley [1982] Qd R 405
H (1981) 3 A Crim R 53
Kennedy, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 3 April 1998
Marchesano 61 A Crim R 372
Stol (1989) 44 A Crim R 137

Case(s) also cited:

Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606, 12 A Crim R 408
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394

(Page 3)

1 PIDGEON J: I am in agreement with the reasons of Wallwork J.

2 WALLWORK J: These are reasons for judgment after the hearing of an application for leave to appeal against a sentence which was imposed upon the applicant in the District Court at Perth on 22 December 1998. The applicant received a total effective sentence of four years imprisonment with eligibility for parole for five offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981. The five offences consisted of three offences which had been charged on indictment and two others which were dealt with pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act, s32.

3 The learned sentencing Judge structured the sentence as follows: He imposed a sentence of…

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 Poole v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Poole v The Queen [1999] WASCA 46
Case: [1999] WASCA 46
Decision Date: 9 JUNE 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Poole v The Queen was heard. The appellant, Mr Poole, was convicted of cultivating and selling cannabis. He challenged the sentence imposed by the lower courts, arguing that the representative counts used in his sentencing were not valid and that it was improper to sentence him for offences that were not charged. The central issue was whether representative counts could be utilised under the Criminal Code when sentencing for offences that were not formally charged. Additionally, the court had to determine whether it was lawful to sentence for offences that were not brought before the court.

The court examined the legislative framework and judicial precedents to resolve these questions. It found that representative counts could indeed be used in sentencing as they provided a comprehensive view of the offender's criminal conduct. The court also ruled that it was permissible to sentence for uncharged offences if they were part of the same criminal operation, as this allowed for a more accurate reflection of the defendant's criminal activity. The court determined that Mr Poole's cultivation and sale of cannabis constituted a single criminal enterprise, justifying the sentence imposed. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal sentence 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.