SOEWANDI -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 315
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 315 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:124/2001 | 1 NOVEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J MCKECHNIE J MCLURE J | 1/11/02 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | HARTONO SOEWANDI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal procedure Appeal against sentence Importation of prohibited import, methylamphetamine Parity of sentence with co-accused Whether sufficient discount given for early plea and cooperation |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21E Customs Act 1901 (Cth) |
Case References: | Nil Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6 Duffy v The Queen (19960 85 A Crim R 456 Iskander v The Queen [2001] WASCA 409 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 192 Paunovic (1990) 51 A Crim R 174 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Nagy [1992] 1 VR 637 R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273 Wong v The Queen 185 ALR 233 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SOEWANDI -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 315 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J
- MCKECHNIE J
MCLURE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal procedure - Appeal against sentence - Importation of prohibited import, methylamphetamine - Parity of sentence with co-accused - Whether sufficient discount given for early plea and cooperation
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21E
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Result:
Appeal allowed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Mr H G Dembo
Solicitors:
Applicant : Laurie Levy & Associates
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6
Duffy v The Queen (19960 85 A Crim R 456
Iskander v The Queen [2001] WASCA 409
Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Mustafa v The Queen [2001] WASCA 192
Paunovic (1990) 51 A Crim R 174
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Nagy [1992] 1 VR 637
R v Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254
Roberts v The Queen [1999] WASCA 273
Wong v The Queen 185 ALR 233
(Page 3)
1 TEMPLEMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant Hartono Soewandi,…
Continue reading Soewandi v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Soewandi v The Queen [2002] WASCA 315
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Soewandi was charged with importing a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, a Schedule 1 prohibited drug, into Australia. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was reviewing an appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. Soewandi's appeal was based on the argument that his sentence was disproportionately high when compared to his co-accused, despite his early plea and cooperation with the authorities. The appeal sought a reduction in the sentence on the grounds that it was not sufficiently discounted to reflect his early plea and cooperation.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Soewandi was appropriate, given the principle of parity in sentencing and the need to consider the discount for his early plea and cooperation. This involved a detailed examination of the sentencing principles and the extent to which the lower court had considered the mitigating factors of Soewandi's early plea and cooperation.
The High Court found that the lower court had not adequately considered the mitigating factors of Soewandi's early plea and cooperation. The court held that the sentence imposed was excessive and not reflective of the discount that should have been applied. The High Court determined that a sufficient discount had not been given to Soewandi for his early plea and cooperation, and as such, the sentence was inappropriate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Soewandi was appropriate, given the principle of parity in sentencing and the need to consider the discount for his early plea and cooperation. This involved a detailed examination of the sentencing principles and the extent to which the lower court had considered the mitigating factors of Soewandi's early plea and cooperation.
The High Court found that the lower court had not adequately considered the mitigating factors of Soewandi's early plea and cooperation. The court held that the sentence imposed was excessive and not reflective of the discount that should have been applied. The High Court determined that a sufficient discount had not been given to Soewandi for his early plea and cooperation, and as such, the sentence was inappropriate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.