Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Two counts of manufacturing methylamphetamine - One count of assaulting a public officer performing a function of his office - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Whether sentencing Judge erred in not giving sufficient consideration to guilty pleas - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 690(3)

Sentencing Act 1995, s 8(4)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305.
R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465.
R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35.
R v Pallister (2002) 131 A Crim R 452.
Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303.

Case(s) also cited:

Aconi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 211
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Morton v The Queen [1986] VR 863
R v Atholwood (1999) 109 A Crim R 465
R v Dodge (1988) 34 A Crim 325
R v Holder & Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152
R v Pop (2000) 116 A Crim R 398
R v Shannon (1979) 21 SASR 442
R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
Radebe v The Queen (2001) 162 FLR 313
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995
Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed. I have reached that conclusion for the reasons to be published by Steytler J with which I am in complete agreement. There is nothing that I could usefully add.
STEYTLER J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against three sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him in the District Court on 20 November 2002. He pleaded guilty to two counts of manufacturing a prohibited drug, being methylamphetamine, and to one count of assaulting a public officer then performing a function of his office. He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on the first count of manufacturing methylamphetamine, to 5½ years' imprisonment on the second count of manufacturing methylamphetamine and to 6 months' imprisonment on the count of assaulting a public officer. The sentences imposed on…

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 Shipley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Shipley v The Queen [2003] WASCA 247
Case: [2003] WASCA 247
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence brought forth by the respondent, Shipley, was heard before the High Court. Shipley had been convicted on two counts of manufacturing methylamphetamine and one count of assaulting a public officer. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, questioning whether it was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the appeal contended that the sentencing judge had failed to give adequate consideration to Shipley's guilty pleas. The central issue before the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the accused's early guilty plea.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing and the weight that should be afforded to a guilty plea. It was noted that while a guilty plea can lead to a discount in sentence, it does not automatically guarantee a lesser penalty. The court examined the principles of proportionality and the role of the sentencing judge in balancing the factors pertinent to the case. The High Court held that the trial judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors, including the guilty pleas, and that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor an abuse of discretion.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various considerations, including the guilty pleas, in arriving at the sentence. The High Court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the broad discretion afforded to the trial judge in sentencing matters. The original sentence was upheld, and no further orders were made.

Orders