WATSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 119
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 119 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:191/1999 | 13 DECEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 5/05/00 | |
| 48 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CYRIL OLIVER WATSON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Sentencing Appeal against total sentences of 15 years' imprisonment Two indictments involving 11 counts involving variously the sale, supply, offer to sell and attempting to possess prohibited drugs, mainly heroin Offences committed while on parole for prior offences Offence in second indictment committed while on bail for offences in first indictment Applicant in upper end of drug distribution hierarchy Mitigation on account of applicant's depression and vulnerability to bad influence of lover outweighed by seriousness of offences Sentences not manifestly excessive |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31 Darwell v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970220; 9 April 1997 Gasteau v R [1999] WASCA 153 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Kauhanen v R [1999] WASCA 14 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) ALJR 1416 Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210 R v Richards [1999] WASCA 105 R v Yates [1985] VR 41 Vartzokas v Zanker (1989) 51 SASR 277 Veen v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 Wright v R (1997) 93 A Crim R 48 Symonds v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WATSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 119 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Sentencing - Appeal against total sentences of 15 years' imprisonment - Two indictments involving 11 counts involving variously the sale, supply, offer to sell and attempting to possess prohibited drugs, mainly heroin - Offences committed while on parole for prior offences - Offence in second indictment committed while on bail for offences in first indictment - Applicant in upper end of drug distribution hierarchy - Mitigation on account of applicant's depression and vulnerability to bad influence of lover outweighed by seriousness of offences - Sentences not manifestly excessive
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Application refused
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr S A Shirrefs & Mr K J Bonomelli
Respondent : Mr L P Rayney
Solicitors:
Applicant : David Manera
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31
Darwell v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970220; 9 April 1997
Gasteau v R [1999] WASCA 153
Jarvis…
Continue reading Watson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, involving the appellant, Watson, and the Crown. The appellant contested his sentences of 15 years' imprisonment, which were imposed following his conviction on two indictments involving 11 counts of drug-related offences. These offences included the sale, supply, offer to sell, and attempted possession of prohibited drugs, predominantly heroin. The crimes were committed while the appellant was on parole for prior drug offences and, in one instance, while he was on bail for offences in the first indictment. The appellant was considered to be in the upper echelon of the drug distribution hierarchy.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and if the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mitigating factors, including his depression and vulnerability to the bad influence of his lover. The court had to assess whether the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the offences, given the appellant's background and personal circumstances.
The court determined that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. While the appellant's personal circumstances were acknowledged, the seriousness of the offences and his position within the drug distribution network were critical factors in the sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating factors against the gravity of the crimes. Consequently, the appeal against the sentences was dismissed, and the application was refused.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and if the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mitigating factors, including his depression and vulnerability to the bad influence of his lover. The court had to assess whether the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the offences, given the appellant's background and personal circumstances.
The court determined that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. While the appellant's personal circumstances were acknowledged, the seriousness of the offences and his position within the drug distribution network were critical factors in the sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating factors against the gravity of the crimes. Consequently, the appeal against the sentences was dismissed, and the application was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.