Waters v Wigger

Case [2016] WASC 377

WATERS -v- WIGGER [2016] WASC 377



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2016] WASC 377
Case No:SJA:1058/201611 NOVEMBER 2016
Coram:KENNETH MARTIN J18/11/16
34Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Extension of time to appeal allowed
Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:CRAIG ANTHONY WATERS
FRANCIS WIGGER

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Appeal against sentence
Possession of 3.99 g of amphetamine with intent to sell or supply
Whether sentence of 12 months' immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive
Option of suspended sentence
Whether failure to take account of chronic medical condition

Legislation:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)

Case References:
Apkarian v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 67
Baron v Walsh [2014] WASCA 124
Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4
Collins v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 108
Colwell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2012] WASCA 196
Crichton v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 37
De Faria v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 116
Dimanopoulos v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 62
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Fenton v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 255
Fogg v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 11
Gulyas v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 263
HNA v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 165
Houghton v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 143; (2006) 32 WAR 260
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Howlett v Hesp [2012] WASC 351
Kelly v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 273
Kere Kere v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 189
Krijestorac v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 35
Lauritsen v The Queen [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 22 WAR 442
Maric v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 190
Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 48
Mitchell v Purvis [2016] WASC 351
Morcom v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 31
Ness v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 56
Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
Perejmibida v Skelcher [2002] WASCA 2
R v Vachalec [1981] 1 NSWLR 351
Ramsay v Trovarello [2009] WASC 146
Riley v Smirk [2011] WASCA 200
Rubin v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 2
Russell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2010] WASCA 159
Smith v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 176
Sumption v Gaunt [2013] WASC 258
The State of Western Australia v Atherton [2009] WASCA 148
The State of Western Australia v Auckram [2013] WASCA 256; (2013) 229 A Crim R 397
The State of Western Australia v Baldini [2015] WASCA 39
The State of Western Australia v Berlingeri [2011] WASCA 242
The State of Western Australia v Johnson [2010] WASCA 187
The State of Western Australia v Khasay…

Continue reading Waters v Wigger

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Waters v Wigger [2016] WASC 377
Case
[2016] WASC 377
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of possessing 3.99 grams of amphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence of 12 months' immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's chronic medical condition and the availability of a suspended sentence. The court was also required to determine if the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the appellant's medical condition when imposing the sentence.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence. The court also found that the trial judge was not obliged to consider the availability of a suspended sentence in this case, as the appellant had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for drug-related offences. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge did not err in failing to take into account the appellant's medical condition, as it did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence.

Given these findings, the court dismissed the appeal. The appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal was allowed. The court's decision confirms the importance of considering the seriousness of drug-related offences and the appellant's criminal history when imposing a sentence. It also highlights the limited circumstances in which a court is required to consider a defendant's medical condition when sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time to appeal allowed

Appeal dismissed

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.