Legal Research
Cases
R v Manuel

R v Manuel

Case [2020] WASCA 189 16 November 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   R -v- MANUEL [2020] WASCA 189
CORAM:   BUSS P
MITCHELL JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   6 AUGUST 2020
DELIVERED          :   16 NOVEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CACR 185 of 2019
BETWEEN:   THE QUEEN
Appellant

AND

TREVOR MANUEL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   HERRON DCJ
File Number            :   IND 2332 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Crown appeal against sentence - Respondent charged with three counts of cross-border firearms trafficking - Pleas of guilty - Trial of issues as to whether the respondent committed the offences for financial reward and whether the respondent committed the offences while subject to non-exculpatory duress - Sentencing judge found against the respondent on the trial of issues - Respondent acquired and then disposed of 87 firearms - Firearms unlawfully acquired and distributed to criminals, most likely outlaw motor cycle gang members - Of the 87 firearms, only five recovered - Manifest inadequacy - Totality

Legislation:

Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 16A, s 16B, s 17A, s 19(2), s 19AB
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(4), s 41(3)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 360.2(1), s 360.3(1)
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 19(2)(a)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 50B(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4
Appeal allowed
Primary's judge's sentencing decision set aside
Respondent resentenced

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms S McNaughton SC & Ms L B Black
Respondent	:	Mr T F Percy QC & Mr S Butcher

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Respondent	:	Butcher Paull & Calder

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

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58
Bertilone v The Queen [2009] WASCA 149; (2009) 231 FLR 383
Bick v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 408
Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; (1990) 169 CLR 525
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] HCA 1; (2012) 244 CLR 638
CMB v Attorney‑General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; (2015) 256 CLR 346
Day v The Queen [2019] WASCA 60
Deakin v The Queen [1984] HCA 31; (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Munro [2019] VSCA 89
Gaskell v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 8
Giglia v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 9
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Lam v The Queen [2014] WASCA 114; (2014) 241 A Crim R 562
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
McAlpine v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 195
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; (2016) 256 CLR 656
Pearce…

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 Manuel

Details

AGLC: R v Manuel [2020] WASCA 189
Case: [2020] WASCA 189
Decision Date: 16 NOVEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Manuel involved the respondent who was charged with three counts of cross-border firearms trafficking. The respondent entered pleas of guilty, but the trial included issues regarding whether the respondent committed the offences for financial reward and whether they did so under non-exculpatory duress. The sentencing judge ruled against the respondent on both issues. The respondent had acquired and disposed of 87 firearms, which were unlawfully obtained and distributed to criminals, likely members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Only five of these firearms were recovered. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the manifest inadequacy of the sentence previously imposed.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the principles of sentencing in relation to serious criminal offences, particularly those involving firearms trafficking. The court had to consider the totality of the respondent's criminal conduct, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the impact of the offences on the community. Additionally, the court had to assess the adequacy of the previous sentence and determine whether a manifest inadequacy existed that warranted a higher sentence. The court was also required to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation against the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court reasoned that the previous sentence was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the respondent's criminal conduct. The respondent's involvement in the trafficking of 87 firearms, with only five recovered, indicated a significant risk to public safety. The firearms were likely to be used by dangerous criminals, exacerbating the gravity of the offences. The court noted that the previous sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the respondent's actions or provide sufficient deterrence. The totality principle was applied to ensure that the overall sentence reflected the cumulative effect of the respondent's criminal activities. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community.

The final orders of the court were to increase the sentence imposed on the respondent, ensuring that it was commensurate with the seriousness of the offences. The court determined that a higher sentence was necessary to reflect the true gravity of the respondent's criminal conduct and to provide adequate deterrence and protection for the community. The increased sentence was intended to uphold the principles of justice and to serve the broader interests of society.

Orders