R -v- WESTON [2000] WASCA 389
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 389 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:123/2000 | 25 SEPTEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J PARKER J | 13/12/00 | |
| 8 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN PAUL DAMIAN WESTON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Crown Appeal Selling amphetamine Term 2-1/2 years suspended for 2 years Whether term should have been suspended Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 Evans v The Queen [1999] WASCA 195 Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189 Leonard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990152; 29 March 1999 Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Nelis v The Queen [2000] WASCA 194 Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Dickson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990203; 23 April 1999 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144 Van De Worp v The Queen [2000] WASCA 154 Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 8 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- WESTON [2000] WASCA 389 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
PARKER J
- Appellant
AND
PAUL DAMIAN WESTON
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Crown Appeal - Selling amphetamine - Term 2-1/2 years suspended for 2 years - Whether term should have been suspended - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent : Mr S W O'Sullivan
Solicitors:
Appellant : Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Alex Palumbo
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
Case(s) also cited:
Evans v The Queen [1999] WASCA 195
Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189
Leonard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990152; 29 March 1999
Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296
Nelis v The Queen [2000] WASCA 194
Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 127
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
R v Dickson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990203; 23 April 1999
R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196
R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394
R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144
Van De Worp v The Queen [2000] WASCA 154
Continue reading R v Weston
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Weston [2000] WASCA 389
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 389
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Mr. Weston, was convicted of selling amphetamine and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, which was suspended for a period of 2 years. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that the term should not have been suspended. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the original sentence, which included a suspended term of imprisonment, was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it should be set aside in favour of a custodial sentence.
The court considered the principles of sentencing in the context of the offence of selling amphetamine. It examined the appellant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact of the offence on the community. The court also considered the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. In evaluating the sentence, the court gave weight to the fact that the appellant had no prior convictions and that he had shown remorse. However, the court also noted the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the deterrent effect of the law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the original sentence, including the suspension of the term of imprisonment, was not manifestly inadequate and was appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the sentence reflected a balanced approach that took into account both the appellant's personal circumstances and the need to uphold the rule of law. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
The court considered the principles of sentencing in the context of the offence of selling amphetamine. It examined the appellant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact of the offence on the community. The court also considered the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. In evaluating the sentence, the court gave weight to the fact that the appellant had no prior convictions and that he had shown remorse. However, the court also noted the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the deterrent effect of the law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the original sentence, including the suspension of the term of imprisonment, was not manifestly inadequate and was appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the sentence reflected a balanced approach that took into account both the appellant's personal circumstances and the need to uphold the rule of law. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.