Roth-Beirne v The Queen - [2001] WASCA 64

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: ROTH-BEIRNE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 64

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
KENNEDY J
STEYTLER J

HEARD: 15 FEBRUARY 2001

DELIVERED : 14 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: CCA 183 of 2000

BETWEEN: SALLY CLAIRE ROTH-BEIRNE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another, cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another, cultivating opium poppies with intent to sell or supply it to another - Concurrent sentences totalling 18 months' imprisonment not set aside as excessive

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal against sentences dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms K J Farley
Respondent: Mr S E Stone

Solicitors:

Applicant: Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Pop v The Queen [2000] WASCA 283
R v Basso (1999) 108 A Crim R 392

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons to be published by Kennedy J with which I am in entire agreement.
KENNEDY J: On 24 July 2000, the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of having in her possession a quantity of a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply it to another, to one count of cultivating a quantity of a prohibited plant, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply it to another and to one count of cultivating a quantity of a prohibited plant, namely papaver somniferum (opium poppy) with intent to sell or supply it to another. The applicant also pleaded guilty to eight charges, the subject of a notice under s 32 of the Sentencing Act 1995, namely having in her possession a prohibited drug, namely heroin; cultivating a prohibited plant, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply it to another; having in her possession a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply it to another; driving a motor vehicle on a road without being the holder of the appropriate driver's licence and whilst legally disentitled to hold a driver's licence; having in her possession an implement for use in connection with the smoking of a prohibited drug, such implement having detectable traces of a prohibited drug, namely cannabis; escaping legal custody; having in her possession a prohibited drug, namely cannabis; and having in her possession a prohibited drug, namely opium.
The statement of material facts indicated that, on 14 November 1999, police officers had executed a search warrant at a property in Hawtin Road, Albany. They conducted a search of an old railway carriage on the property, which was used by the applicant. They also located numerous plastic bags which contained, in total, 4.4 kg of dry cannabis leaf and head material and 2.7 kg of cannabis seeds. Some of…

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 Roth-Beirne v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Roth-Beirne v The Queen [2001] WASCA 64
Case: [2001] WASCA 64
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roth-Beirne was convicted of possessing cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another, cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply it to another, and cultivating opium poppies with intent to sell or supply it to another. The accused appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The appeal raised questions about whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to take into account all the relevant factors and had not properly balanced the circumstances of the case. The central issue for the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment was so disproportionate to the offending as to shock the conscience of the court.

The High Court considered the sentencing principles applicable in Australia, including the need for consistency in sentencing, the role of deterrence, and the need to consider the circumstances of the offender. The court noted that the appellant had a previous criminal history and had been involved in significant drug-related activities. The court concluded that the sentence of imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the need to deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors and had not erred in imposing the sentence.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders