R -v- HAFNER [2002] WASCA 211
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 211 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:34/2002 | 20 JUNE 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J | 7/08/02 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN DARREN JOHN HAFNER |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Crown appeal One count of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to sell or supply and one count of attempting to sell or supply methylamphetamine Whether total sentence of 7 years manifestly inadequate Effect of respondent's role in distribution chain Importance of quantity and quality of drugs No error in discretion demonstrated Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(d) |
Case References: | Aconi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 211 Delovski v The Queen [2002] WASCA 88 Grakalic v The Queen [2002] WASCA 139 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520 R v Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v White [2002] WASCA 112 S v The Queen [2000] WASCA 34 Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119 Wong v The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 233; [2001] HCA 64 Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Leonard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990152, 29 March 1999 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Newman & Turnbull v The Queen [1997] 1 VR 146 Pop v The Queen [2000] WASCA 283 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Dodge (1988) 34 A Crim R 325 R v Duncan [1998] 3 VR 208 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Mantini [1998] 3 VR 340 R v O'Rourke [1997] 1 VR 246 R v Pickett [1986] 2 Qd R 441 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 Verrier v Director of Public Prosecutions [1967] 2 AC 195 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- HAFNER [2002] WASCA 211 CORAM : MURRAY J
- STEYTLER J
TEMPLEMAN J
- Appellant
AND
DARREN JOHN HAFNER
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Crown appeal - One count of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to sell or supply and one count of attempting to sell or supply methylamphetamine - Whether total sentence of 7 years manifestly inadequate - Effect of respondent's role in distribution chain - Importance of quantity and quality of drugs - No error in discretion demonstrated - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(d)
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
Continue reading R v Hafner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Hafner [2002] WASCA 211
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of R v Hafner concerned an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to sell or supply, and one count of attempting to sell or supply methylamphetamine. The Crown sought to appeal on the basis that the total sentence of 7 years imprisonment was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue was whether the total sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, given the respondent's role in the distribution chain and the quantities and qualities of the drugs involved. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the respondent's involvement in the drug trade. The respondent contended that the sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances, including his background and potential for rehabilitation.
In considering the appeal, the Court examined the principles of sentencing and the discretion afforded to trial judges. The Court noted that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the respondent's role, the quantities and qualities of the drugs, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court concluded that the trial judge had not demonstrated any error in his discretion, and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
The central legal issue was whether the total sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, given the respondent's role in the distribution chain and the quantities and qualities of the drugs involved. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the respondent's involvement in the drug trade. The respondent contended that the sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances, including his background and potential for rehabilitation.
In considering the appeal, the Court examined the principles of sentencing and the discretion afforded to trial judges. The Court noted that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the respondent's role, the quantities and qualities of the drugs, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court concluded that the trial judge had not demonstrated any error in his discretion, and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for 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.