TANADI -v- R [1999] WASCA 188

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 188
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:50/1999	Heard:	7 SEPTEMBER 1999
Coram:	IPP J WALLWORK J PARKER J	Delivered:	30/09/99
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	PANGKY TANADI THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Importation of narcotics Ecstasy and Ice (Amphetamine and Heroin) Sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with 5 year non-parole period, not excessive
Legislation:	Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233B(1)(b)
Case References:	Darwell v The Queen (1997) 97 A Crim R 35 Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 98 A Crim R 578 Lim v The Queen unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997 Parsons v The Queen (1993) 66 A Crim R 550 Vasich v The Queen (1998) 99 A Crim R 262 Morton (1987) 28 A Crim R 409

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : TANADI -v- R [1999] WASCA 188 CORAM : IPP J

WALLWORK J

PARKER J

HEARD : 7 SEPTEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 30 SEPTEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 50 of 1999 BETWEEN : PANGKY TANADI

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Importation of narcotics - Ecstasy and Ice (Amphetamine and Heroin) - Sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with 5 year non-parole period, not excessive

Legislation:

Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233B(1)(b)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr H C Quail

Respondent : Mr J A Scholz

Solicitors:

Applicant : Julie Wager

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Darwell v The Queen (1997) 97 A Crim R 35
Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 98 A Crim R 578
Lim v The Queen unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970482; 26 September 1997
Parsons v The Queen (1993) 66 A Crim R 550
Vasich v The Queen (1998) 99 A Crim R 262

Case(s) also cited:

Morton (1987) 28 A Crim R 409

(Page 3)

1 IPP J: I have read the reasons to be published by Parker J. I agree with them and his Honour's conclusions. I have nothing further to add.

2 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Parker J and to the order proposed by his Honour.

3 PARKER J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with a 5-year non-parole period to which the applicant was sentenced by Hammond CJDC on 15 March 1999 in respect of three counts of importation into Australia of a prohibited import, namely, narcotic goods, contrary to s 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901.

4 The importation in each case occurred on 27 September 1998 when the applicant arrived at the Perth International Airport on a flight from Jakarta, Indonesia. He was searched by officers of the…

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 Tanadi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tanadi v The Queen [1999] WASCA 188
Case: [1999] WASCA 188
Decision Date: 30 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tanadi v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of drug importation and trafficking offences involving ecstasy and ice. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years, arguing that the sentence was excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive or manifestly inadequate in the context of the gravity of the crime and the principles of sentencing. The appellant contended that the sentence was disproportionately severe in comparison to sentences imposed in similar cases. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the crime, in considering the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and retribution, and in weighing the appellant's personal circumstances.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the evidence presented in the trial, including the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, the appellant's role in the importation and trafficking, and his criminal history. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases of drug importation and trafficking, and concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.