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
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
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.
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
- AGLC
- Ziino v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 222
- Case
- [2007] WASCA 222
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.