R v Lyon

Case [2001] WASCA 120

R -v- LYON [2001] WASCA 120



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASCA 120
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:269/200014 MARCH 2001
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
ANDERSON J
STEYTLER J		17/04/01
12Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
PDF Version
Parties:THE QUEEN
JAMES LYON
DARREN STUART SMITH

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Sentencing
Possession of 7.9 kilograms of cannabis with intent to sell or supply
Sentences of 2-1/2 years suspended for 2 years set aside as inadequate
Sentences of 2-1/2 years' immediate imprisonment substituted

Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 688(2)
Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 101
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 61(a), s 32A, s 34(1)(a)

Case References:
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 175 ALR 315
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kennedy, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 3 April 1998
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Fazari v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960651; 14 November 1996
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Minchinton (1998) 104 A Crim R 502
R v Shaharuddin [1999] WASCA 229
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- LYON [2001] WASCA 120 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
    ANDERSON J
    STEYTLER J
HEARD : 14 MARCH 2001 DELIVERED : 17 APRIL 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 - Sentencing - Possession of 7.9 kilograms of cannabis with intent to sell or supply - Sentences of 2-1/2 years suspended for 2 years set aside as inadequate - Sentences of 2-1/2 years' immediate imprisonment substituted




Legislation:


    Criminal Code, s 688(2)
Justices Act 1902(WA), s 101
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 61(a), s 32A, s 34(1)(a)


Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

CCA 269 of 2000


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC
    Respondent : Mr M R Gunning


Solicitors:

    Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
    Respondent : Gunning

CCA 270 of 2000


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC
    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) 175 ALR 315
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kennedy, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 3 April 1998
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386

Case(s) also cited:



Fazari v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960651; 14 November 1996
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Minchinton (1998) 104 A Crim R 502
R v Shaharuddin [1999] WASCA 229
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

Continue reading R v Lyon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lyon [2001] WASCA 120
Case
[2001] WASCA 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lyon, the appellant, a resident of Queensland, was convicted of possessing 7.9 kilograms of cannabis with intent to sell or supply. The appellant was sentenced to 2-1/2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. The Crown appealed the sentence as being inadequate in the circumstances of the case. The Queensland Court of Appeal heard the appeal and found the original sentence to be manifestly inadequate. The court substituted a sentence of 2-1/2 years' immediate imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offence and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court considered various factors, including the quantity of drugs involved, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for specific and general deterrence. The court held that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and failed to provide sufficient punishment and deterrence.

The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and the need for appropriate punishment when determining a sentence. The court noted that the possession of a large quantity of drugs with intent to sell or supply indicated a significant level of involvement in the illicit drug trade. The court also considered the appellant's previous criminal history, which included convictions for drug-related offences, and concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or provide sufficient punishment or deterrence. The court substituted a sentence of 2-1/2 years' immediate imprisonment, finding that it was a more appropriate sentence in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.