STAUNTON -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 21
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 21 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 13/02/2004 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:100/2003 | 2 DECEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER J MCLURE J WALLWORK AJ | 2/12/03 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARK GEOFFREY STAUNTON THE QUEEN ROSS WALTER CORBITT |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentencing Whether sentence manifestly excessive Parity Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 401(2) |
Case References: | Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61 Lim v The Queen [2002] WASCA 228 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 Nicholls v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930584; 7 September 1993 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 5 August 1994 Heferen v The Queen [1999] WASCA 81 James v The Queen (1985) 14 A Crim R 364 R v Barbis & Rouse [2003] WASCA 107 R v MacGown (1986) 42 SASR 580 R v Rowe (1991) 52 A Crim R 196 R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159 Ricciardello v The Queen [2001] WASCA 416 Rose v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6928; 19 November 1987 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : STAUNTON -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 21 CORAM : WHEELER J
- MCLURE J
WALLWORK AJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Parity - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 401(2)
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
CCA 100 of 2003
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M T Trowell QC & Mr P G Laskaris
Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Ms K E Ellson
Solicitors:
Applicant : Bayly & O'Brien
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
CCA 101 of 2003
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M T Trowell QC & Mr P G Laskaris
Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Ms K E Ellson
Solicitors:
Applicant : Bayly & O'Brien
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Herbert v The Queen [2003] WASCA 61
Lim v The Queen [2002] WASCA 228
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195…
Continue reading Staunton v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Staunton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 21
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of Australia, Staunton was the appellant and The Queen was the respondent in a case concerning the sentencing of the appellant on drug trafficking charges. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and sought to appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was not in line with those given in similar cases, and therefore, not in parity with the principles of sentencing. The appellant's argument was that the sentence should be reduced on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, and that the Court of Appeal should have recognised this. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law by failing to reduce the sentence on the basis of parity with other cases. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant authorities on the issue of parity. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the Court of Appeal had not erred in law in failing to reduce the sentence on the basis of parity. The court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offence, and that the Court of Appeal had properly considered the appellant's circumstances and the principles of sentencing in arriving at the sentence. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the Court of Appeal had not erred in law in failing to reduce the sentence on the basis of parity. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.