WA v Thompson

[2014] WASCA 108

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Fact finding for sentencing purposes
4. › Conviction after jury trial
5. › Role of sentencing judge in finding facts consistent with verdict
6. › Whether sentencing judge obliged to sentence on most favourable findings
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 11
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Manifest inadequacy
4. › State appeal against sentence
5. › Wrong type of sentence
6. › Whether fine manifestly inadequate for possession with intent to sell or supply
7. › Whether immediate imprisonment the only appropriate sentencing option
8. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 41(4)(b)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 11
3. › Deeming provision
4. › Whether s 11 mandates compendious finding of intent to 'sell or supply' for sentencing purposes
5. › Whether sentencing judge may find intent to sell or intent to supply separately
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › State appeal against sentence
4. › Residual discretion to decline to allow appeal
5. › Double jeopardy principle abolished
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 41(4)(b)

Quick Take

Section 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) permits but does not mandate a compendious finding of intent to 'sell or supply' for sentencing purposes; the sentencing judge may find either intent to sell or intent to supply if the evidence permits. The customary sentence of immediate imprisonment for possession with intent to sell or supply under s 6(1)(a) does not depend on establishing commerciality. A sentencing judge is not obliged to sentence on the most favourable findings simply because the State has not proved a more serious factual basis beyond reasonable doubt.