Johnson v The Queen

(2002) 26 WAR 336; [2002] WASCA 102

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Commonwealth drug offences
4. › Attempts to obtain prohibited imports
5. › Ecstasy (commercial quantity) and cocaine (trafficable quantity)
6. › Whether sentences manifestly excessive
7. › Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c), s 235(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Multiple offences
4. › Totality principle
5. › One transaction rule
6. › Whether cumulative sentences appropriate where two separate drugs obtained in single transaction
7. › Whether failure to follow preferred sentencing methodology constitutes error
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Commonwealth offences
4. › Commencement of cumulative sentences
5. › Whether sentencing judge required to specify date of commencement
6. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19(2)
7. › Sentence Administration Act 1999 (WA), s 6(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Instinctive synthesis versus two-stage approach
4. › Whether two-stage approach to sentencing is wrong in principle

Quick Take

Where two separate drugs are imported in a single transaction, the one transaction rule does not require concurrent sentences because the offences involve separate acts with no common elements. A sentencing judge's failure to follow the precise methodology in Pearce v The Queen (fixing individual sentences before considering cumulation) does not constitute a miscarriage of justice if the aggregate sentence is not manifestly excessive. For compliance with s 19(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), it is sufficient to direct that sentences be cumulative without specifying the exact commencement date, provided the date can be identified for sentence administration purposes.