Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Two counts of possession of amphetamines with intent to sell or supply - Crown appeal - Courier conveying two quantities of methylamphetamine from interstate to Perth - One package of 146 grams of powder of 55 per cent purity - One package of 988 tablets weighing 237.9 grams with a purity of 6.8 per cent - Travelling in false name - Good antecedents - Effective sentence of 3 years increased to 7 years

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Sentence increased to 7 years

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr K P Bates & Mr A S Derrick
Respondent: Mr J D Allanson

Solicitors:

Appellant: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Jeremy Scudds

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

Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Miller v The Queen [1999] WASCA 66
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520
R v Devlin & Marentette (1971) 3 Canadian Criminal Cases 2nd series 20

Case(s) also cited:

La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
R v Bond (1990) 48 A Crim R 1
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
R v Heferen (1999) 106 A Crim R 89
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Tait (1971) 46 FLR 386

KENNEDY J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wallwork J. I am in agreement with those reasons and with the orders which his Honour proposes.
PIDGEON J: I agree with the reasons of Wallwork J. I would allow the appeal for those reasons and substitute the sentence proposed.
WALLWORK J: This is a Crown appeal against two sentences of imprisonment of 3 years' each, which were imposed upon the respondent in the District Court at Perth on 26 November 1999.
The respondent had pleaded guilty to couriering two quantities of methylamphetamine from Sydney to Perth by air on 28 April 1999. Both quantities were transported on the same occasion and were contained in two packages wrapped in masking tape inside the respondent's underwear. One package contained 164 gms of light brown powder, which was found on analysis to be methylamphetamine of 55 per cent purity. The other package contained 988 methylamphetamine tablets weighing 237.9 gms, with a purity of 6.8 per cent. The respondent had flown under the name of J Petrie, which was not his name.
In the plea…

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 Votano

Details

AGLC: R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144
Case: [2000] WASCA 144
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Votano, the appellant was convicted of two counts of possession of amphetamines with intent to sell or supply. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The appellant was apprehended while travelling as a courier from interstate to Perth, carrying two quantities of methylamphetamine, one being 146 grams of powder with 55 per cent purity and the other 988 tablets weighing 237.9 grams with a purity of 6.8 per cent. The appellant travelled under a false name and had a history of good antecedents.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, and if so, what an appropriate sentence should be. The Crown argued that the trial judge failed to adequately take into account the seriousness of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The appellant submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, including his good antecedents and the fact that he was acting as a courier.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the seriousness of the offending, the need for general deterrence, and the appellant's good antecedents. The court found that the appellant played a significant role in the transportation of the drugs and that the quantities involved were substantial. The court also found that the need for general deterrence was significant given the high level of purity of the drugs and the fact that the appellant was travelling under a false name. The court ultimately determined that an effective sentence of 7 years was appropriate.

The court allowed the Crown's appeal and increased the appellant's sentence from 3 years to 7 years. The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced to an effective sentence of 7 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months.

Orders