Watt v The Queen

Case [2000] WASCA 354

WATT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 354



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 354
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:176/20003 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:KENNEDY J
WALLWORK J
MILLER J		3/11/00
5Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for leave to appeal refused
PDF Version
Parties:MICHAEL LYNDALL WATT
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Sentence
Possession methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
Deals at "relatively high level"
Value of drugs $1700
Sentence of 4 years' imprisonment upheld

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Bellissimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Calder v The Queen, unreported SCt of WA; Library No 960534; 11 September 1996
Darwell v R (1979) 94 A Crim R 35
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665
Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210
Koushappis v R, unreported; CCA of SCt of WA; Library No 950729; 6 December 1995
Vodanovic v R, unreported; CCA of SCt of WA; Library No 960056; 9 February 1996
R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WATT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 354 CORAM : KENNEDY J
    WALLWORK J
    MILLER J
HEARD : 3 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 176 of 2000 BETWEEN : MICHAEL LYNDALL WATT
    Applicant

    AND

    THE QUEEN
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentence - Possession methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply - Deals at "relatively high level" - Value of drugs $1700 - Sentence of 4 years' imprisonment upheld




Legislation:

Nil




Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused




(Page 2)

Representation:


Counsel:


    Applicant : Mr M R Gunning
    Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC


Solicitors:

    Applicant : Gunning
    Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions


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

Bellissimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Calder v The Queen, unreported SCt of WA; Library No 960534; 11 September 1996
Darwell v R (1979) 94 A Crim R 35
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665

Case(s) also cited:



Quach v R [1999] WASCA 210
Koushappis v R, unreported; CCA of SCt of WA; Library No 950729; 6 December 1995
Vodanovic v R, unreported; CCA of SCt of WA; Library No 960056; 9 February 1996
R v Votano [2000] WASCA 144

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: I invite Justice Miller to deliver the reasons for judgment.

2 MILLER J: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to make application for leave to appeal against sentence and subject to that application being granted, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment imposed upon him on 23 June 2000 for the offence of having in his possession a quantity of a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply it to another.

3 The application for leave to appeal against sentence was filed some 16 days out of time. The reason given…

Continue reading Watt v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Watt v The Queen [2000] WASCA 354
Case
[2000] WASCA 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Watt v The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia, involving the appellant, Watt, and the respondent, the Crown. Watt was convicted of possessing methylamphetamine with the intent to sell or supply, with the value of the drugs amounting to $1700. Watt was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence. Watt argued that the sentence was unduly harsh, particularly given the relatively low value of the drugs and the absence of any prior convictions.

The court examined the principles governing the imposition of sentences in criminal cases, focusing on proportionality and the need to balance the interests of society, the offender, and the victim. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, particularly given the potential harm associated with the supply of methylamphetamine. However, it also considered the specific circumstances, including the relatively small quantity of drugs and Watt's lack of criminal history. Despite these factors, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it reflected the gravity of the offence and served the purposes of deterrence and denunciation.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the primary judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and exercised their discretion within acceptable bounds. The sentence was deemed proportionate to the offence and the circumstances, taking into account both the culpability of the offender and the need to protect the community. Consequently, the court dismissed Watt's application for leave to appeal, upholding the original sentence of four years' imprisonment. This outcome reflects the court's view that the sentence was justified and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

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.