Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:
PETER EDMUND VOGEL THE QUEEN
Catchwords:
Criminal law Sentence Possession methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply Sentence upheld
Legislation:
Nil
Case References:
Bellissimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Darwell v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Watt v R [2000] WASCA 354 Jacobs v R (2001) 124 A Crim R 115 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 Tsagaris v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 Van De Aar v R (2001) 124 A Crim R 115
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : VOGEL -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 261 CORAM : MURRAY J
WHEELER J BURCHETT AUJ
HEARD : 5 SEPTEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 20 SEPTEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 95 of 2002 BETWEEN : PETER EDMUND VOGEL
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Sentence - Possession methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Sentence upheld
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R W Cannon Respondent : Mr K M Tavener
Solicitors:
Applicant : R W Cannon Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bellissimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Darwell v R (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Watt v R [2000] WASCA 354
Case(s) also cited:
Jacobs v R (2001) 124 A Crim R 115 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 Tsagaris v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 Van De Aar v R (2001) 124 A Crim R 115
(Page 3)
1 MURRAY J: I agree with Wheeler J that, for the reasons given by her Honour, leave to appeal should be refused in this case.
2 WHEELER J: On 15 May 2002 this applicant was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole in respect of one count of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The maximum penalty for such an offence is 25 years' imprisonment and/or $100,000 fine.
3 The circumstances of the offence were that early on the morning of 12 November 2000 the applicant was at the East Perth lockup, having been arrested as a result of an incident outside a nightclub. He was searched there and found to have in his possession two packets of white powder, one packet being found in his wallet and the other in his pocket. One contained 3.8 grams of methylamphetamine of 11 per cent purity and the other 2.86 grams of…
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 Vogel v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Vogel v The Queen [2002] WASCA 261
Case
[2002] WASCA 261
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Vogel, the appellant, faced the Crown in a case concerning possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The matter was heard by the High Court, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on Vogel following his conviction. The appellant challenged the sentence, arguing it was excessive and disproportionate to the crime committed. The Crown defended the sentence, asserting it was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to proportionality and deterrence, as well as the specific factors that warranted the sentence. This included assessing the quantum of the drugs involved, the role of the appellant in the criminal activity, and the potential impact on the community. The court also needed to determine whether the lower court had adequately considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.
The High Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the lower court had appropriately considered the gravity of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for general deterrence. The quantum of the drugs, the appellant's role in the criminal activity, and the potential harm to the community were all significant factors that justified the sentence. The court was satisfied that the lower court had exercised its discretion correctly in arriving at the sentence. As a result, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was also denied.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed