THURLING -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 271

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 271
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:247/1999	Heard:	16 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	IPP J WALLWORK J MILLER J	Delivered:	22/09/00
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal refused
PDF Version

Parties:	TIA THURLING THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Possession of cocaine and possession of LSD with intent to sell or supply Bad record of drug offences Whether sentencing Judge recognised attempts at reformation Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Case References:	Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210 R v Ruich [1999] WASCA 84 Robertson v The Queen (1989) 44 A Crim R 224 Donatelli v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980505; 3 September 1998 Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195 Knezevich v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7661; 18 May 1989 La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996 Thompson & Owen v The Queen (1998) 105 A Crim R 260

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : THURLING -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 271 CORAM : IPP J

WALLWORK J

MILLER J

HEARD : 16 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 247 of 1999 BETWEEN : TIA THURLING

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Possession of cocaine and possession of LSD with intent to sell or supply - Bad record of drug offences - Whether sentencing Judge recognised attempts at reformation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr A Metaxas

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms J A Girdham

Solicitors:

Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellant's Scheme

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210
R v Ruich [1999] WASCA 84
Robertson v The Queen (1989) 44 A Crim R 224

Case(s) also cited:

Donatelli v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980505; 3 September 1998
Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
Knezevich v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7661; 18 May 1989
La Rosa v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 31 October 1996
Thompson & Owen v The Queen (1998) 105 A Crim R 260

(Page 3)

1 IPP J: I have read the reasons to be published by Wallwork J. I agree with those reasons and the conclusions expressed by his Honour. I wish merely to…

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 Thurling v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Thurling v The Queen [2000] WASCA 271
Case: [2000] WASCA 271
Decision Date: 22 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thurling v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of possessing cocaine and LSD with intent to sell or supply, and sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant's primary contention was that the sentencing judge did not adequately account for his efforts to reform and his own drug addiction in determining his sentence. He argued that the judge focused excessively on the appellant's criminal history and failed to consider mitigating factors such as his participation in rehabilitation programs and his attempts to steer clear of criminal activity.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing in criminal law, particularly the weight to be given to an offender's past criminal record, their attempts at rehabilitation, and their own addiction when determining an appropriate penalty. The appellant argued that the judge should have exercised more discretion in recognising his personal efforts to change his life and his struggle with drug addiction. The central question was whether the sentencing judge adequately balanced these factors against the severity of the crimes committed.

The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's efforts at reformation and his drug addiction but determined that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crimes committed. The judge had balanced these considerations appropriately against the appellant's extensive history of drug offences, concluding that a custodial sentence was necessary. The court concluded that the judge's approach was consistent with the principles of sentencing in similar cases, and the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for 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.