WORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 303
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 303 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:9/2001 | 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J ROBERTS-SMITH J EINFELD AJ | 3/10/01 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NOEL MUNRO WORTH THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Manufacture of amphetamine Actual production of 16.1 gm Crown allegation of potential yield of up to 6 kg of amphetamine from precursor seized Whether potential yield relevant to sentence Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Parity principle Appropriate discount for plea of guilty |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(2) |
Case References: | Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305 Christianos (2000) 114 A Crim R 215 Cooper (1998) 103 A Crim R 51 Diefenbach (1999) 108 A Crim R 19 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1538 Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 McKeagg v The Queen [2001] WASCA 99 Paparone v The Queen [2000] WASCA 123 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Radebe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 254 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 464 Darwell v The Queen (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996 Jarvis v the Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Legeng v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950391; 4 August 1995 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Tsagaris v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 303 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- ROBERTS-SMITH J
EINFELD AJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Manufacture of amphetamine - Actual production of 16.1 gm - Crown allegation of potential yield of up to 6 kg of amphetamine from precursor seized - Whether potential yield relevant to sentence
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Parity principle - Appropriate discount for plea of guilty
Legislation:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(2)
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms K J Farley
Respondent : Mr S E Stone
Solicitors:
Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305
Christianos (2000) 114 A Crim R 215
Cooper…
Continue reading Worth v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 303
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the appellant, Worth, appealed against his sentence for the manufacture of amphetamine, having produced 16.1 grams of the drug. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The key issue before the court was whether the potential yield of up to 6 kilograms of amphetamine from precursor seized, as alleged by the Crown, was relevant to the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court examined whether the appellant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty under the parity principle.
The court determined that the potential yield of the drug, while relevant to the seriousness of the offence, was not a factor that should be considered in determining the sentence. The court held that the potential yield was speculative and did not accurately reflect the actual harm caused by the appellant's actions. The court further found that the appellant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty under the parity principle, which recognises the benefits of a plea of guilty to both the administration of justice and the defendant. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessive and granted the application for leave to appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
The court determined that the potential yield of the drug, while relevant to the seriousness of the offence, was not a factor that should be considered in determining the sentence. The court held that the potential yield was speculative and did not accurately reflect the actual harm caused by the appellant's actions. The court further found that the appellant was entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty under the parity principle, which recognises the benefits of a plea of guilty to both the administration of justice and the defendant. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessive and granted the application for leave to appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
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.