ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [1999] WASCA 273
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 273 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:180/1998 | 9 & 10 SEPTEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | IPP J WALLWORK J WHITE J | 2/12/99 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal of first applicant dismissedAppeal of second applicant allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ARTHUR REGINALD ROBERTS THE QUEEN ANDREW HOPE ROBERTS |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence Commonwealth drug offences Conspiracy to import not less than a trafficable quantity of ecstasy or MDMA Applicants were principals in the conspiracy First applicant was more deeply involved in the conspiracy than the second Whether sentences were manifestly excessive Appropriate sentence for an offence of this kind is close to or the maximum of 25 years' imprisonment, a fine of $100,000 or both Appropriate discount for first applicant's plea of guilty following negotiations with the prosecution Parity principle applied Sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed on the first applicant upheld Sentence of 11 years' imprisonment imposed on second applicant set aside and substituted with a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment, upon the ground of parity alone |
Legislation: | Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233B, s 235(2) Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth) |
Case References: | Atholwood v R [1999] WASCA 256 Atholwood v The Queen [1999] WASCA 256 Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Fazari v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960651; 14 November 1996 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383 Jarvis v The Queen, (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lowe v the Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Mortimer v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997 Musarri v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980662; 17 November 1998 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Bulger [1990] 2 Qd R 559 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Doyle (1994) 71 A Crim R 360 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v Raz, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW, BC 9201407; 17 December 1992 R v Su [1997] 1 VR 1 Robertson v The Queen (1989) 44 A Crim R 224 Robinson v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1 Simpson v The Queen (1993) 68 Crim R 439 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Doan, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; Library No 60101; 27 September 1996 R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 158 R v Kane [1975] VR 658 R v Morris [1951] 1 KB 394 R v Portolesi (1988) 48 SASR 217 R v Roberts and Roberts, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No D980058; 11 March 1997 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF…
Continue reading Roberts v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 273
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Roberts v The Queen involved two applicants who were appealing their sentences for their roles in a conspiracy to import a significant quantity of ecstasy or MDMA. The applicants were both principals in the conspiracy, with the first applicant being more deeply involved than the second. They were sentenced to 15 and 11 years' imprisonment, respectively. The applicants argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive and sought a reduction on the basis that the appropriate sentence for such an offence is close to or the maximum of 25 years' imprisonment, a fine of $100,000 or both. The applicants also claimed that the first applicant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty following negotiations with the prosecution.
The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive and whether the first applicant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty. The court considered the principles of sentencing for such offences, including the appropriate discount for a plea of guilty and the parity principle, which requires that similarly situated offenders receive similar sentences. The court also considered the level of involvement of each applicant in the conspiracy.
The court found that the sentences imposed on the applicants were not manifestly excessive, as the sentences were within the range of penalties available for the offence. The court also found that the first applicant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty, but that the discount was already taken into account in the sentence imposed. The court found that the second applicant's sentence was not in parity with that of the first applicant, who was more deeply involved in the conspiracy. Accordingly, the court set aside the sentence imposed on the second applicant and substituted it with a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment.
The appeal of the first applicant was dismissed, and the appeal of the second applicant was allowed. The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed on the first applicant was upheld, and the sentence of 11 years' imprisonment imposed on the second applicant was set aside and substituted with a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the level of involvement of each offender in a conspiracy when imposing sentences, as well as the principles of sentencing for such offences.
The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive and whether the first applicant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty. The court considered the principles of sentencing for such offences, including the appropriate discount for a plea of guilty and the parity principle, which requires that similarly situated offenders receive similar sentences. The court also considered the level of involvement of each applicant in the conspiracy.
The court found that the sentences imposed on the applicants were not manifestly excessive, as the sentences were within the range of penalties available for the offence. The court also found that the first applicant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty, but that the discount was already taken into account in the sentence imposed. The court found that the second applicant's sentence was not in parity with that of the first applicant, who was more deeply involved in the conspiracy. Accordingly, the court set aside the sentence imposed on the second applicant and substituted it with a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment.
The appeal of the first applicant was dismissed, and the appeal of the second applicant was allowed. The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed on the first applicant was upheld, and the sentence of 11 years' imprisonment imposed on the second applicant was set aside and substituted with a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the level of involvement of each offender in a conspiracy when imposing sentences, as well as the principles of sentencing for such offences.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal of first applicant dismissedAppeal of second applicant 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.