RUDZITIS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 243

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 243
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:47/2003	Heard:	22 SEPTEMBER 2003
Coram:	MURRAY J STEYTLER J PARKER J	Delivered:	10/10/03
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Sentence of 5 years imprisonment quashed New sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment substituted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER RUDZITIS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Attempted manufacture of MDMA Sentence imposed of imprisonment for 5 years Intermittent completion of progressive stages of manufacturing process Relevance of potential capacity to manufacture Irrelevant consideration given to a chemical not connected with offence Manifestly excessive Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Sentence Administration Act 2003 Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003
Case References:	Abela v The Queen [2002] WASCA 279. , Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305. , Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296 R v Pallister (2002) 131 A Crim R 452 R v Paparone (2000) 112 A Crim R 190 Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303. , Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : RUDZITIS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 243 CORAM : MURRAY J

STEYTLER J

PARKER J

HEARD : 22 SEPTEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 10 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 47 of 2003 BETWEEN : PETER RUDZITIS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Attempted manufacture of MDMA - Sentence imposed of imprisonment for 5 years - Intermittent completion of progressive stages of manufacturing process - Relevance of potential capacity to manufacture - Irrelevant consideration given to a chemical not connected with offence - Manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Sentence Administration Act 2003

Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Sentence of 5 years imprisonment quashed
New sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment substituted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : Gunning Young

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Abela v The Queen [2002] WASCA 279
Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305
Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296
R v Pallister (2002) 131 A Crim R 452
R v Paparone (2000) 112 A Crim R 190
Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The applicant was convicted, after trial before a District Court Judge and a jury, of attempting to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely MDMA; as it is commonly known, "ecstasy". The offence occurred at his place of residence at Myaree on 19 April 2001.

2 On 1 April 2003 the applicant was sentenced by Williams DCJ in respect of this offence to serve a term of five years imprisonment. Service 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 Rudzitis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rudzitis v The Queen [2003] WASCA 243
Case: [2003] WASCA 243
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Rudzitis, was convicted for the attempted manufacture of MDMA and appealed against his sentence. Rudzitis was found guilty of possessing precursor chemicals and other items used in the production of MDMA, and had intermittently completed various stages of the manufacturing process. Rudzitis was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by the County Court, a sentence which was later confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Rudzitis' appeal to the High Court was based on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the Court of Appeal had erred in not considering the potential capacity to manufacture MDMA.

The High Court was required to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if so, whether the Court of Appeal had erred in not considering the potential capacity to manufacture MDMA. The Court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as the Court of Appeal had given irrelevant consideration to a chemical not connected with the offence, and had not given proper weight to the potential capacity to manufacture MDMA. The Court also found that the sentence did not take into account the fact that Rudzitis had not completed the entire manufacturing process.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the original sentence, substituting a new sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment. The Court held that the potential capacity to manufacture MDMA was a relevant consideration in determining the sentence, and that the Court of Appeal had erred in not taking this into account. The Court also held that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the Court of Appeal had given irrelevant consideration to a chemical not connected with the offence. The Court emphasised that the decision turned on its own facts, and that the sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Sentence of 5 years imprisonment quashed

New sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment substituted

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.