Scott v The King

Case [2023] WASCA 14


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT  :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   SCOTT -v- THE KING [2023] WASCA 14

CORAM:   BUSS P

MAZZA JA

VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   5 AUGUST 2022

DELIVERED          :   31 JANUARY 2023

FILE NO/S:   CACR 162 of 2021

BETWEEN:   DARRIN JOHN SCOTT

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

FILE NO/S:   CACR 5 of 2022

BETWEEN:   DARRIN JOHN SCOTT

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   GOETZE DCJ

File Number            :   IND 429 of 2020


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Application for leave to appeal against order fixing non‑parole period - Appellant convicted of intentionally importing tier 1 goods contrary to s 233BAA(4) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) - Whether sentence of 1 year 4 months' imprisonment on count 1 was manifestly excessive - Whether total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment infringed first limb of totality principle - Whether a non‑parole period of 2 years 8 months was manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

Result:

CACR 162 of 2021
Leave to appeal on ground 1 refused
Leave to appeal on ground 2 granted
Appeal dismissed

CACR 5 of 2022
Leave to appeal on single ground of appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category:    D

Representation:

CACR 162 of 2021

Counsel:

Appellant : C M Townsend
Respondent : E P Fitzpatrick

Solicitors:

Appellant : Timpano Legal
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

CACR 5 of 2022

Counsel:

Appellant : C M Townsend
Respondent : E P Fitzpatrick

Solicitors:

Appellant : Timpano Legal
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Duffy v Richardson [2004] ACTSC 47

Garcia v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 241

He v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 220

Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520

Lam v The Queen [2014] WASCA 114; (2014) 241 A Crim R 562

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Nguyen v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 5

Oliveria v The Queen [2020] WASCA 32

R v Ng [2012] WASCA 180

R v Russell [2017] SASCFC 126

R v Temmingh [2005] NSWCCA 261

Soerensen v The Queen [2020] WASCA 114

Stipkovich v The Queen [2018] WASCA 63

Tang v The Queen [2020] WASCA 194

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Overview

  1. On 24 June 2021, the appellant, Darrin Scott, was convicted on his pleas of guilty of seven counts of intentionally importing tier 1 goods contrary to s 233BAA(4) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). Mr Scott imported various steroids (referred to as 'anabolic or androgenic substances') of different weights and purities. On 21 October 2021, Mr Scott was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 years' immediate imprisonment backdated to 19 October 2021. The sentencing judge also ordered that Mr Scott be eligible for parole after serving 2 years and 8 months of…

Continue reading Scott v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Scott v The King [2023] WASCA 14
Case
[2023] WASCA 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darrin John Scott, the appellant, was convicted on his pleas of guilty of seven counts of intentionally importing tier 1 goods contrary to s 233BAA(4) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). Mr Scott imported various steroids (referred to as 'anabolic or androgenic substances') of different weights and purities. The sentencing judge imposed a total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment backdated to 19 October 2021 and ordered that Mr Scott be eligible for parole after serving 2 years and 8 months of that term of imprisonment. Mr Scott applied for leave to appeal against the sentence and the order as to eligibility for parole. The appeal against sentence was based on two grounds: (1) that the sentence imposed with respect to count 1 was manifestly excessive, and (2) that the total effective sentence infringed the first limb of the totality principle. The appeal against the order as to eligibility for parole was based on the single ground that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The appeals must be dismissed. The sentence of 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment on count 1 was not manifestly excessive. The total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment did not infringe the first limb of the totality principle. The non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months was not manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal on ground 1 should be refused. Leave to appeal on ground 2 should be granted. The appeal against sentence must be dismissed. Leave to appeal on the single ground of appeal should be granted. The appeal against the order fixing the non-parole period must be dismissed. An extension of time should be granted to Mr Scott to apply for leave to appeal against the order fixing the non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.