Cant v WA

[2009] WASCA 188

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
6. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity
4. › Co-offenders in same drug transaction
5. › Whether disparity gives rise to justifiable sense of grievance
6. › Respective circumstances of appellant and co-offender
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Sentence appeal
4. › Manifestly excessive sentence
5. › Appellate court may interfere only where sentencing discretion not properly exercised

Quick Take

For parity purposes, where a co-offender receives sentences on multiple counts and the totality principle is applied by adjusting commencement dates rather than individual sentence lengths, the comparison should be with the sentence on the relevant count rather than the total effective sentence. A difference of 6 months between co-offenders' sentences for the same drug transaction does not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance where there are significant differences in age, criminal history, health, and cooperation with police.