R -v- LYON [2001] WASCA 120 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 120 (S)
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:269/2000	Heard:	14 MARCH 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	17/04/01
Supplementary Delivered:	30/07/01
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Omission from reasons for judgment corrected
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN JAMES LYON DARREN STUART SMITH
Catchwords:	Criminal law Drug offences Omission of reference in reasons for judgment to Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 34(2)(a) No necessity to correct sentence under Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 37
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 34(1)(a), s 34(2)(a) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 6, s 37, s 76
Case References:	Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 74 ALJR 1538 Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- LYON [2001] WASCA 120 (S) CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 14 MARCH 2001 DELIVERED : 17 APRIL 2001 FURTHER HEARD : 21 JUNE 2001 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 30 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 269 of 2000 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

JAMES LYON

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CCA 270 of 2000 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

DARREN STUART SMITH

Respondent

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offences - Omission of reference in reasons for judgment to Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 34(2)(a) - No necessity to correct sentence under Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 37

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 34(1)(a), s 34(2)(a)

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 6, s 37, s 76

Result:

Omission from reasons for judgment corrected

Representation:

CCA 269 of 2000

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms J A Girdham

Respondent : Mr M R Gunning

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Gunning

CCA 270 of 2000

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms J A Girdham

Respondent : Mr L M Levy

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Laurie Levy

(Page 3)

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

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 74 ALJR 1538
Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 4)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 14 March 2001 the Court heard appeals by the Crown under s 688(2) of the Criminal Code against the sentences imposed upon the respondents by the learned sentencing Judge, Hammond CJDC, namely, sentences to terms of imprisonment for 2-1/2 years which, in each case, were ordered to be suspended for 2 years. Judgment on the appeals was delivered on 17 April 2001. The Court allowed the appeals in each case and substituted an immediate sentence of imprisonment for 2-1/2 years with an order for eligibility for parole. The principal judgment was delivered by Anderson J with whom both Malcolm CJ and Steytler J…

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 R v Lyon

Details

AGLC: R v Lyon [2001] WASCA 120 (S)
Case: [2001] WASCA 120 (S)
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, with the appellant, Lyon, challenging the sentence imposed upon him for drug trafficking offences. Lyon's conviction was upheld, but he argued that the trial judge had failed to properly reference a specific statutory provision in the reasons for judgment. This omission, according to Lyon, was significant because it could have affected the outcome of his sentence. The legal issues before the court were whether the omission of the statutory reference in the reasons for judgment necessitated a correction of the sentence and, if so, whether such correction was permissible under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).

The court found that while the omission of the statutory reference in the reasons for judgment was indeed an error, it did not warrant a correction of the sentence. The court reasoned that the trial judge had, in fact, correctly applied the law in imposing the sentence, and the omission did not influence the outcome. Furthermore, the court held that the relevant statutory provision, Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 37, did not permit a correction of the sentence in such circumstances. The omission did not prejudice the appellant's case and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the omission from the reasons for judgment was corrected.

Orders

Orders of the court

Omission from reasons for judgment corrected

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.