Savory v The State of Western Australia

Savory was convicted of attempting to possess cannabis with intent to sell or supply. He appealed against his sentence of 20 months' immediate imprisonment, arguing that the judge had erred in determining the discount for the plea of guilty. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judge's assessment of the discount was a legal or factual error and, if a factual error, whether it warranted a different sentence. Savory argued that the discount should have been greater given the circumstances of his plea and the nature of the offence.

The court examined the judge's reasoning in assessing the discount for the plea of guilty. It considered whether the judge had erred in law or fact and whether any error warranted a different sentence. The court held that the judge's assessment of the discount was a factual matter, not a legal one. It found that the judge had not erred in fact, as the discount was appropriately applied based on the circumstances of the case. The court determined that the sentence was appropriate and did not require alteration.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court confirmed that the sentence of 20 months' immediate imprisonment was appropriate, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the plea. The decision reinforces the principle that a discount for a plea of guilty is a factual matter, and the court's assessment is subject to review for error of fact.