Ziino v The State of Western Australia

Case [2007] WASCA 222


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   ZIINO -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2007] WASCA 222

CORAM:   OWEN JA

WHEELER JA
MILLER JA

HEARD:   11 SEPTEMBER 2007

DELIVERED          :   23 OCTOBER 2007

FILE NO/S:   CACR 134 of 2006

BETWEEN:   GAETANO GIUSEPPE ZIINO

Appellant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :HEALY DCJ

File No  :IND 647 of 2005

Catchwords:

Sentencing - Two counts of supplying MDMA (ecstasy) and one count of possessing MDMA with intent to sell or supply - Aggregate sentence of 7 years - Whether individual sentences manifestly excessive - Whether aggregate sentence offended totality principle - Sentence of 7 years not disturbed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr T F Percy QC & Mr J A Davies

Respondent:     Ms L D O'Connor

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Andrew Maughan

Respondent:     Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Bosworth v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 144

Colangelo v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 294

Delovski v The Queen [2002] WASCA 88

Grakalic v The Queen [2002] WASCA 139; (2002) 27 WAR 19

Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Olomi v The Queen [2004] WASCA 304

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610

Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295

Samuels v The State of Western Australia (No 2) [2006] WASCA 222

The State of Western Australia v Andela [2006] WASCA 77

Tulloh v The Queen [2004] WASCA 169; (2004) 147 A Crim R 107

Watson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 119

  1. OWEN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on the applicant in the District Court. The applicant was convicted after a jury trial of offences of supplying and possessing prohibited drugs contrary to s 6(1)(a) and s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA).

Background

  1. On 22 October 2004, the applicant supplied 198 MDMA (ecstasy) tablets to Daniel Simic, who was later tried with him as his co‑offender.  The tablets weighed 55.26 grams and their purity was determined at between 32 and 38%.  The estimated street value of the tablets was $9,900.  These tablets formed the subject of count 1 of the indictment.  Simic was found guilty of possession of the tablets (count 2 of the indictment), and sentenced to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment.

  2. On 9 December 2004 the applicant supplied 199 MDMA tablets to Kyle Happe.  The total weight of the tablets was 54.9 grams and their purity was determined to be 37%.  The estimated street value was $9,950.  These tablets were the subject of count 3 of the indictment.  Happe was searched by police at Perth Train Station where the tablets were…

Continue reading Ziino v The State of Western Australia

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ziino v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 222
Case
[2007] WASCA 222
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ziino v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Ziino, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for two counts of supplying MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) and one count of possessing MDMA with intent to sell or supply. The appeal was heard by the Western Australian Court of Appeal. Ziino was sentenced to a total of seven years in prison, which he argued was excessive and violated the principles of sentencing.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether each of the individual sentences was manifestly excessive, and if the aggregate sentence of seven years breached the totality principle. The totality principle in sentencing requires that the combined sentence for multiple offences does not exceed what would be appropriate for the most serious offence alone, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Ziino's counsel argued that the sentences were excessive and did not reflect the principles of justice and fairness.

The court, however, found that the aggregate sentence of seven years did not breach the totality principle. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.