Criminal law and procedure - Crown appeal against sentence - Manufacture of amphetamines - Scale of operation - Actual production of 64 grams - Potential yield of 1.1 kilograms - Personal circumstances - Need for general deterrence

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Time spent in custody awaiting trial on unrelated charges - Whether credit can be given for time spent in custody - Hardship

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 6(1)(b)

Poisons Act 1964, s 5

Sentencing Act 1995, s 87

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent: Mr S D Hall

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Michael Tudori

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

Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305
Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
Palmer v The Queen [1999] WASCA 253
Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303

Case(s) also cited:

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Donatelli v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980505; 3 September 1998
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Ruich [2000] WASCA 84

WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Anderson J and to the conclusions which have been reached by his Honour.
There is nothing I wish to add.
ANDERSON J: This is a Crown appeal against sentence.
The respondent was presented in the District Court on 7 September 2001 on an indictment charging him that:
"On a date unknown between 1 January 2000 and 9 September 2000 at Manjimup [he] manufactured a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine."
This offence is created by s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 which provides that:
"6(1) … a person who —
(a)…
(b)manufactures or prepares …
(c)…
a prohibited drug commits an indictable offence … "
A "prohibited drug" includes a "drug of addiction". For the purposes of the Act, a "drug of addiction" means a drug of addiction as defined by s 5 of the Poisons Act 1964. The definition of "drug of addiction" in the Poisons Act includes methylamphetamine.
By s 34(1)(a), the maximum penalty for an offence under s 6(1) is a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 25 years, or both. Parliament therefore manifestly takes the view that the manufacture of methylamphetamine is a very serious offence indeed.
The respondent entered a plea of guilty and, in the statement of facts which was read to the court, counsel for the…

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 Pallister

Details

AGLC: R v Pallister [2002] WASCA 68
Case: [2002] WASCA 68
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pallister, was convicted of manufacturing a prohibited drug, specifically amphetamines, on a significant scale. The case came before the court on an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The Crown sought a harsher penalty, arguing that the scale of operation and potential yield of the illicit substances warranted a more severe sentence. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the original sentence, considering the substantial nature of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the appropriate weight to be given to the scale of operation, the potential yield, and the need for general deterrence when determining the appropriate penalty. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any credit should be given for the time the appellant had spent in custody awaiting trial on unrelated charges, and whether any hardship experienced by the appellant should be taken into account. The court had to balance these factors in light of the statutory sentencing principles applicable to the offence.

The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, given the large-scale operation and potential yield. The court emphasised the need for general deterrence in cases involving the manufacture of dangerous substances on such a scale. While the appellant had spent time in custody awaiting trial on unrelated charges, the court decided that no credit should be given for this period, as it did not relate to the current offence. The court also found that any hardship experienced by the appellant did not warrant a reduction in sentence. Ultimately, the court increased the sentence imposed on the appellant, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders of the court included an increase in the sentence imposed on the appellant, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the scale of operation and potential yield when determining an appropriate sentence for drug manufacturing offences. Additionally, the court confirmed that no credit should be given for time spent in custody awaiting trial on unrelated charges and that any hardship experienced by the appellant did not warrant a reduction in sentence.

Orders