TOWNSEND -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 249

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 249
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:36/2001	Heard:	13 JUNE 2001
Coram:	KENNEDY J STEYTLER J MILLER J	Delivered:	13/06/01
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	TROY ADAM TOWNSEND THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentence Drug offences Parity Totality principle Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cabasi v R [2000] WASCA 305 Jarvis v R (1993) 20 WAR 201 R v Nobes, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980097; 5 March 1998 R v Schuster, unreported, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970180; 23 April 1997 R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159 Savvas v R (1995) 129 ALR 319 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : TOWNSEND -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 249 CORAM : KENNEDY J

STEYTLER J

MILLER J

HEARD : 13 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 13 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 36 of 2001 BETWEEN : TROY ADAM TOWNSEND

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Drug offences - Parity - Totality principle - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr S D Hall

Respondent : Mr K M Tavener

Solicitors:

Applicant : Pryles & Defteros

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cabasi v R [2000] WASCA 305
Jarvis v R (1993) 20 WAR 201
R v Nobes, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980097; 5 March 1998
R v Schuster, unreported, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970180; 23 April 1997
R v Ward (1999) 109 A Crim R 159
Savvas v R (1995) 129 ALR 319

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: I invite Miller J to deliver his reasons.

2 MILLER J: The applicant was charged with others on an indictment which alleged one count of conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine and one count of conspiring with another to engage in a transaction that involved money that was the proceeds of a major offence. He was also charged on another indictment with one count of possession of a quantity of heroin with intent to sell or supply to another.

3 On these counts he came before the District Court at Perth on 19 January 2001. He pleaded guilty to the counts of conspiracy to manufacture amphetamines and conspiracy to engage in money laundering. In relation to the single count on the separate indictment he pleaded guilty to possession of heroin. This plea was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment.

4 After hearing substantial submissions on penalty on 19 January the learned trial Judge remanded the applicant for sentence until 20 February 2001. On that day he was sentenced…

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 Townsend v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Townsend v The Queen [2001] WASCA 249
Case: [2001] WASCA 249
Decision Date: 13 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Townsend v The Queen involved an appeal by the defendant, Townsend, against his conviction and sentence for drug-related offences. The dispute centred on the sentencing principles applied by the lower court, particularly the application of the totality principle and the concept of parity in sentencing. Townsend argued that his sentence was excessive and disproportionate when compared to other offenders who had committed similar crimes. The appeal sought a review of the sentence to ensure it aligned with the principles of parity and the totality principle.

The legal issues the court was required to decide revolved around the appropriate application of sentencing principles in cases involving drug offences. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the lower court had correctly applied the totality principle, which requires that the overall sentence for multiple offences should not be disproportionate to the gravity of the individual offences. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the sentence reflected the principle of parity, which ensures that similar offenders receive comparable sentences. Townsend contended that his sentence was harsher than those of others who had committed similar offences, thus breaching these principles.

The court's reasoning and outcome focused on the application of the totality principle and the principle of parity. The court found that the lower court had appropriately balanced the totality of Townsend's offending with the need for punishment and deterrence. It held that while the sentence was severe, it was justified given the circumstances of the case, including the quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's criminal history. The court also rejected Townsend's argument regarding parity, stating that each case turns on its own facts and that the lower court had adequately considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to refuse leave to appeal, thereby upholding the original conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. This decision reaffirmed the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need for sentences to reflect the specific circumstances of each case.

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.