R -v- MAHASAY [2002] WASCA 336
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 336 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:86/2002 | 4 NOVEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J | 4/11/02 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN MUCDA MAHASAY IVAN RAFAEL PEREIRA |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Cross appeal Possession of methylamphetamine with intent Extent to which purity of drug is a factor in sentence |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Dodd v The Queen [2002] WASCA 55 Fursman v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCT of WA; Library No 7414; 5 December 1988 Giannopoulos v The Queen [2000] WASCA 396 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Koushappis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 18 La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 Marker v The Queen [2002] WASCA 282 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Hafner [2002] WASCA 211 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999 199 CLR 270 R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144 Vogel v The Queen [2002] WASCA 261 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 185 ALR 233 Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Collier v The Queen [2001] WASCA 69 Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Everett and Phillips v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Koushappis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950729; 6 December 1996 Lawton v The Queen [2002] WASCA 199 McKenna v The Queen (1992) 63 A Crim R 452 Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127 R v Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31 R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980619; 29 October 1998 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254; (2001) 122 A Crim R 559 Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 63 Thom v The Queen (2001) 126 A Crim R 196 Vodanovic v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960056; 9 February 1996 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- MAHASAY [2002] WASCA 336 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J
- WHEELER J
MCKECHNIE J
- Appellant
AND
MUCDA MAHASAY
Respondent
- Appellant
AND
IVAN RAFAEL PEREIRA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Cross appeal - Possession of methylamphetamine with intent - Extent to which purity of drug is a factor in sentence
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
CCA 86 of 2002
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr J Mactaggart
Respondent : Ms G A Archer
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Legal Aid of Western Australia
CCA 87 of…
Continue reading R v Mahasay
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Mahasay [2002] WASCA 336
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 336
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Mahasay, the respondent, Mahasay, was convicted of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to supply. Mahasay appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that the primary judge had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the drugs in question were of relatively low purity. The prosecution cross-appealed, arguing that the sentence was too lenient. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal.
The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had correctly assessed the appropriate sentence for Mahasay's offence, given the relatively low purity of the methylamphetamine. The appeal hinged on the extent to which the purity of the drug should be considered in determining the sentence. Mahasay contended that the low purity should have significantly reduced the severity of the sentence, while the prosecution argued that the sentence was inadequate given the nature of the offence.
The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the purity of the drug but had erred in the weight given to it. The Court found that the primary judge had not adequately accounted for the fact that the low purity did not necessarily diminish the seriousness of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the prosecution's cross-appeal was upheld to some extent, resulting in an increase in the sentence imposed on Mahasay. The Court concluded that the original sentence was too lenient and adjusted it to reflect the seriousness of the offence more accurately.
The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had correctly assessed the appropriate sentence for Mahasay's offence, given the relatively low purity of the methylamphetamine. The appeal hinged on the extent to which the purity of the drug should be considered in determining the sentence. Mahasay contended that the low purity should have significantly reduced the severity of the sentence, while the prosecution argued that the sentence was inadequate given the nature of the offence.
The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the purity of the drug but had erred in the weight given to it. The Court found that the primary judge had not adequately accounted for the fact that the low purity did not necessarily diminish the seriousness of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the prosecution's cross-appeal was upheld to some extent, resulting in an increase in the sentence imposed on Mahasay. The Court concluded that the original sentence was too lenient and adjusted it to reflect the seriousness of the offence more accurately.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.