Mustafa v The Queen

[2002] WASCA 357

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Power of Court of Criminal Appeal to recall perfected sentence
5. › Whether Court functus officio after issue of warrant of commitment
6. › Whether inherent jurisdiction exists to reopen
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 687, s 689(3), s 697
8. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 37
9. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 57, s 58
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Parity of sentencing co-offenders
5. › Whether mathematical error in discount calculation required variation of sentence
6. › Whether sentence appropriate having regard to hierarchy of co-offenders
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Slip rule and inherent jurisdiction
3. › Power to correct perfected orders
4. › Whether slip rule or inherent jurisdiction available to Court of Criminal Appeal
5. › Whether error in sentencing reasons constitutes accidental slip or omission

Quick Take

The question whether the WA Court of Criminal Appeal has inherent jurisdiction to recall a perfected sentence remains unresolved, with Malcolm CJ holding it does (via s 697 of the Criminal Code), Murray J holding it does not (the Court being functus officio as a creature of statute), and Steytler J assuming jurisdiction without deciding. A mathematical error in sentencing reasons does not require variation of the sentence where the final result is appropriate having regard to parity with co-offenders.