The State of Western Australia v Wickham

The case before the court was an appeal by the State of Western Australia against a sentence imposed on Wickham. Wickham had been convicted on three counts of possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply. The sentencing judge had imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment, suspended for two years, which the State of Western Australia sought to appeal as manifestly inadequate. Additionally, the State argued that the sentencing judge had erred in not finding Wickham's intention in relation to one of the charges, that of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge had erred in not finding Wickham's intention.

The court began by considering the appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It noted that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the seriousness of Wickham's offending, particularly in relation to the possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate and set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge. The court then considered the argument that the sentencing judge had erred in not finding Wickham's intention in relation to the charge of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in this regard, and that this error had contributed to the imposition of a manifestly inadequate sentence.

As a result of the findings above, the court allowed the appeal on ground 3. It set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge and remitted the matter to the District Court for rehearing of Wickham's pleas of guilty before a different judge. The court emphasised that the rehearing should be conducted with proper regard to the seriousness of Wickham's offending, particularly in relation to the possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The court also noted that the rehearing should be conducted in accordance with the principles of sentencing set out in the relevant legislation and case law.