DAVID SUKKAR -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2008] WASCA 2
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASCA 2 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:25/2007 | 16 NOVEMBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER P McLURE JA BUSS JA | 10/01/08 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application to review dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID SUKKAR THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Review of single judge's refusal to grant leave to appeal against sentence Possession of prohibited import Equivalent of 77 kg of pure cocaine Appellant was instrumental to importation but not primary organiser Need to consider each case individually Sentencing factors include nature of drug, weight of drug and principles of deterrence Matters personal to the appellant are of limited weight but not entirely irrelevant Appellant showed little remorse and entered late plea of guilty 21 years' imprisonment with nonparole period of 13 years Grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospect of success |
Legislation: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(1), s 16A(2), s 16G, s 19AB Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(b) (repealed), s 233B(1)(c) (repealed), s 235(2)(c) (repealed) |
Case References: | Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Cheung (1997) 97 A Crim R 283 de la Espriella-Velasco v The Queen [2006] WASCA 31; (2006) 31 WAR 291 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 Kaye v The Queen [2004] WASCA 227 Keating v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 98 Lawless v Turner [2007] WASCA 127 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 R v Heeng Ung [2000] NSWCCA 195 R v Lam [2005] VSC 98 R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234 R v Mo [2007] NSWCCA 61; (2007) 169 A Crim R 60 R v Nguyen [2005] NSWCCA 362; (2005) 157 A Crim R 80 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Reaves [2004] WASCA 106; (2004) 147 A Crim R 26 R v Suarez-Mejia [2002] WASCA 187; (2002) 131 A Crim R 577 R v Teng [2005] VSC 33 R v To Si Thanh [2007] NSWCCA 200 R v Vo [2000] NSWCCA 440; (2000) 118 A Crim R 320 Samuels v Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473 Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418 Tulloh v The Queen [2004] WASCA 169; (2004) 147 A Crim R 107 Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : DAVID SUKKAR -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2008] WASCA 2 CORAM : STEYTLER P
- McLURE JA
BUSS JA
Continue reading Sukkar v The Queen (No. 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Sukkar v The Queen (No. 2) [2008] WASCA 2
- Case
- [2008] WASCA 2
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Sukkar v The Queen, the appellant, Sukkar, sought a review of a single judge's refusal to grant leave to appeal against his sentence for possession of a significant quantity of cocaine, equivalent to 77 kilograms of pure cocaine. The appellant was involved in the importation of the drug but was not the primary organiser. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the refusal of the lower court to grant leave to appeal the sentence imposed on Sukkar.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant's grounds for appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The court had to consider various sentencing factors, including the nature and quantity of the drug, the role of the appellant in the importation, and the principles of deterrence and retribution. The court also needed to weigh the appellant's personal circumstances, such as his lack of remorse and late plea of guilty, against the broader objectives of sentencing. The High Court had to determine whether these factors, individually or collectively, provided a basis for the appeal to be considered meritorious.
The High Court found that the appellant's grounds for appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The court acknowledged that while the appellant played a significant role in the importation, he was not the primary organiser, which was a relevant factor in the sentencing. The court also considered the substantial quantity of cocaine involved and the principles of deterrence and retribution. Although the appellant's personal circumstances were taken into account, they were deemed of limited weight in the overall sentencing framework. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application to review the single judge's decision.
The final orders of the High Court were that the application to review the refusal to grant leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The sentence of 21 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years was upheld, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant's grounds for appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The court had to consider various sentencing factors, including the nature and quantity of the drug, the role of the appellant in the importation, and the principles of deterrence and retribution. The court also needed to weigh the appellant's personal circumstances, such as his lack of remorse and late plea of guilty, against the broader objectives of sentencing. The High Court had to determine whether these factors, individually or collectively, provided a basis for the appeal to be considered meritorious.
The High Court found that the appellant's grounds for appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The court acknowledged that while the appellant played a significant role in the importation, he was not the primary organiser, which was a relevant factor in the sentencing. The court also considered the substantial quantity of cocaine involved and the principles of deterrence and retribution. Although the appellant's personal circumstances were taken into account, they were deemed of limited weight in the overall sentencing framework. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application to review the single judge's decision.
The final orders of the High Court were that the application to review the refusal to grant leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The sentence of 21 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years was upheld, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application to review 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.