Cohen v WA

[2006] WASCA 210

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. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
5. › Methylamphetamine and cocaine
6. › Whether total effective sentence manifestly excessive
7. › Comparison with analogous cases
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Cumulation and concurrency
4. › Multiple drug possession counts
5. › Whether sentences should be concurrent as part of one business of drug dealing
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Confiscation of assets
5. › Whether forfeiture of legitimately obtained assets mitigates sentence
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Sentence appeal
4. › Whether proposed ground has reasonable prospect of success

Quick Take

Sentences for multiple counts of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply will not be ordered to run concurrently merely because they form part of the one 'business' of drug dealing; this argument is plainly wrong in principle. The mitigatory force of asset confiscation is negligible where the assets were inherited rather than earned through personal labour and the offending was a deliberate course of conduct rather than a single transaction. Weight and purity of drugs, while relevant, do not determine sentence by mathematical calculation.