Criminal law - Application for leave to appeal - Importation of amphetamine - 10,517 ecstasy tablets - Relevant weight 136.3 grams - Sentence of 61/2 years' imprisonment - Eligibility for parole after serving 3 years - Whether manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth), s 307.2(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S B Watters
Respondent: Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Appellant: Andrew Maughan
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Barany v The Queen (2000) 114 A Crim R 426
Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31
Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
De Bonde v The Queen [2002] WASCA 251
Diefenbach v The Queen (1999) 108 A Crim R 19
Harris v The Queen (2004) 150 A Crim R 509
Heryadi v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 383
Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164
Oancea (1990) 51 A Crim R 141
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Pha [2004] NSWCCA 445
R v Salcedo [2004] NSWCCA 430
Soewandi v The Queen [2002] WASCA 315
Tulloh v The Queen (2004) 147 A Crim R 107
Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

MILLER JA: The appellant pleaded guilty before Kennedy CJDC in the District Court on 10 August 2006 to an indictment which alleged that on 2 April 2006 at Perth International Airport, she imported a substance, being a border control drug, namely amphetamine, the quantity imported being a marketable quantity, contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This was an offence punishable by imprisonment for 25 years.
The learned sentencing Judge imposed a sentence of 6‑1/2 years' imprisonment. An order was made that the appellant serve a minimum term of 3 years before eligibility for parole. The sentence was backdated to 2 April 2006.

Appeal

The appellant seeks leave to appeal the sentence of 6‑1/2 years' imprisonment, contending that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Two particulars are given:
"a)The learned sentencing Judge placed undue weight upon the quantity of the drug;
b)The learned sentencing Judge departed from the range of sentences customarily imposed for offences of this nature."

The facts

The appellant arrived in Perth at about 8.45 am on 2 April 2006. She was a United Kingdom national and she arrived on a South African Airways flight from Johannesburg in South Africa.
The appellant's luggage was x‑rayed by Australian Quarantine Inspection Service officers…

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 Taylor v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The Queen [2007] WASCA 146
Case: [2007] WASCA 146
Decision Date: 13 JULY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Taylor, was found in possession of a significant amount of amphetamine, specifically 10,517 ecstasy tablets, with a total relevant weight of 136.3 grams. This led to his conviction and a sentence of six and a half years' imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving three years. The appellant sought leave to appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the specific circumstances of his case. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Taylor was manifestly excessive, considering the particular facts of his case. The court had to examine the principles of sentencing, the severity of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's involvement. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe given his limited role in the importation of the drugs and his otherwise clean criminal record. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the significant quantity of drugs involved and the potential harm to the community.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the principles of proportionality and individualisation in sentencing. The court acknowledged the severity of the offence and the quantity of drugs involved but also took into account the appellant's limited role and his personal circumstances. The court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the circumstances. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and took into account the need for general deterrence. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.

Orders