R -v- RUICH [2000] WASCA 84
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 84 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:260/1999 | 8 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J IPP J | 6/04/00 | |
| 12 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN TONY RUICH |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Drug offences One count of selling heroin, three counts of possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply it to another Fourth offence committed while on bail for three earlier offences Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment inadequate Sentence of 6 years substituted |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980619; 29 October 1998 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Tait [1979] 46 FLR 386 Allen v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950215; 27 April 1995 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Musarri v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980662; 17 November 1998 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Catts (1996) 85 A Crim R 171 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Heryadi (1998) 98 A Crim R 578 R v Legg, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980305; 5 June 1998 R v Nixon (1993) 66 A Crim R 83 R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 R v Shaw (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 R v Skrjanc (1994) 71 A Crim R 347 R v Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998 Ugle v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5868; 27 June 1985 Vassiliou v The Queen [1999] WASCA 140 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- RUICH [2000] WASCA 84 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
IPP J
- Appellant
AND
TONY RUICH
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Drug offences - One count of selling heroin, three counts of possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply it to another - Fourth offence committed while on bail for three earlier offences - Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment inadequate - Sentence of 6 years…
Continue reading R v Ruich
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Ruich [2000] WASCA 84
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Ruich was heard in the High Court of Australia. Ruich was convicted on four counts related to drug offences, including selling heroin and possessing heroin with intent to sell or supply it to another. The particular issue before the court was whether the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was adequate, particularly given that the fourth offence was committed while Ruich was on bail for the other three offences.
The legal issues that the court had to address involved the principles of sentencing in relation to repeat offending and the gravity of the crimes committed. The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the nature of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding Ruich's repeated offending. This included evaluating the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of Ruich's criminal conduct.
In its reasoning, the court noted that Ruich's criminal history and the commission of the fourth offence while on bail demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that warranted a more severe sentence. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Ruich's repeated offending and the potential risk he posed to the community. Consequently, the court substituted the original sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with a sentence of 6 years, considering it more appropriate given the circumstances. The court's decision was grounded in the need for the sentence to act as both a punishment and a deterrent, taking into account the cumulative effect of Ruich's criminal conduct.
The legal issues that the court had to address involved the principles of sentencing in relation to repeat offending and the gravity of the crimes committed. The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the nature of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding Ruich's repeated offending. This included evaluating the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of Ruich's criminal conduct.
In its reasoning, the court noted that Ruich's criminal history and the commission of the fourth offence while on bail demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that warranted a more severe sentence. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Ruich's repeated offending and the potential risk he posed to the community. Consequently, the court substituted the original sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with a sentence of 6 years, considering it more appropriate given the circumstances. The court's decision was grounded in the need for the sentence to act as both a punishment and a deterrent, taking into account the cumulative effect of Ruich's criminal conduct.
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.