Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Brazier v The Queen

[2002] WASCA 278

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Attempting to possess prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply
5. › Cocaine
6. › Starting point for sentence
7. › Whether starting point of 9 years manifestly excessive
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 33
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders in drug supply chain
5. › Wholesaler and distributor
6. › Whether same starting point for offenders at different levels of distribution chain created impermissible disparity
7. › Whether applicant had justifiable sense of grievance
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Cumulative sentences
4. › Totality principle
5. › Delay between plea and sentencing
6. › Whether sentence structure achieved intended result
7. › Whether applicant prejudiced by delay not of his making
8. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 87, 94

Quick Take

Where the Crown concedes that a co-offender had a larger role in a drug distribution operation, the sentencing judge must adopt a lower starting point for the offender with the lesser role; failure to do so infringes the parity principle. Where sentencing is delayed through no fault of the offender, the sentencing structure must actually achieve the intended result of accounting for that delay, and a failure to do so may be corrected on appeal.