R -v- MUNRO [2000] WASCA 285
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 285 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:113/2000 | 7 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J IPP J WHEELER J | 7/09/00 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN DEAN MARSHALL MUNRO |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Crown appeal against sentence Possession of 27.8 grams of heroin with intent to sell or supply Intensive supervision order imposed Whether sentence was manifestly inadequate Whether sentencing Judge placed too great emphasis on mitigating circumstances Personal circumstances are less relevant in heroin cases Non-custodial sentence only imposed in exceptional circumstances |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 6(1)(a) Sentencing Act 1995, s 32 Road Traffic Act 1994 The Criminal Code |
Case References: | Donatelli v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library 980505; 3 September 1998 Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210 R v Leucus (1995) 78 A Crim R 40 R v Ruich [2000] WASCA 84 Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387 La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980619; 29 October 1998 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 S v The Queen [2000] WASCA 34 Tsagaris v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 Veen v The Queen (No 1) (1979) 143 CLR 458 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- MUNRO [2000] WASCA 285 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- IPP J
WHEELER J
- Appellant
AND
DEAN MARSHALL MUNRO
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Crown appeal against sentence - Possession of 27.8 grams of heroin with intent to sell or supply - Intensive supervision order imposed - Whether sentence was manifestly inadequate - Whether sentencing Judge placed too great emphasis on mitigating circumstances - Personal circumstances are less relevant in heroin cases - Non-custodial sentence only imposed in exceptional circumstances
Legislation:
Misuse of Drugs Act1981, s 6(1)(a)
Sentencing Act 1995, s 32
Road Traffic Act 1994
The Criminal Code
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent : Mr P J Hogan
Solicitors:
Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Legal Aid Commission
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Donatelli v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library 980505; 3 September 1998
Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210
R v Leucus (1995) 78 A Crim R 40
R v Ruich [2000] WASCA 84
Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387
Case(s) also cited:
La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996
R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980619; 29 October…
Continue reading R v Munro
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Munro [2000] WASCA 285
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 285
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Munro involved the appellant, Munro, who was found guilty of possessing 27.8 grams of heroin with the intent to sell or supply. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The Crown submitted that the sentence, which was an intensive supervision order, did not reflect the seriousness of the offence, particularly given the quantity of drugs involved. The Crown further argued that the trial judge had placed too much emphasis on the appellant's personal circumstances, which are considered less relevant in heroin cases. The Crown contended that a non-custodial sentence should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge had erred in placing significant weight on the appellant's personal circumstances. The court considered the nature and quantum of the drugs involved, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing for drug offences. The court held that the quantity of heroin and the intent to sell or supply indicated a high level of culpability. The court further found that the trial judge had erred in placing too much emphasis on the appellant's personal circumstances, which are of lesser relevance in heroin cases. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the offence.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The case was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing, with directions to consider the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court emphasised that non-custodial sentences in heroin cases should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, and the trial judge must properly weigh the mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge had erred in placing significant weight on the appellant's personal circumstances. The court considered the nature and quantum of the drugs involved, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing for drug offences. The court held that the quantity of heroin and the intent to sell or supply indicated a high level of culpability. The court further found that the trial judge had erred in placing too much emphasis on the appellant's personal circumstances, which are of lesser relevance in heroin cases. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the offence.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The case was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing, with directions to consider the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court emphasised that non-custodial sentences in heroin cases should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, and the trial judge must properly weigh the mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence.
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.