WA v Wilson

[2015] WASCA 119

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › State appeal against sentence
4. › Drug offences
5. › Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
6. › Totality principle
7. › Whether total effective sentence bore proper relationship to overall criminality
8. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31, s 41(4)(b)
9. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA(2)
10. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 34(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Manifest inadequacy
4. › Individual sentences for drug trafficking offences
5. › Whether individual sentences reduced for totality considerations could be manifestly inadequate when assessed in isolation
6. › Whether sentences substantially less than comparable cases
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › State appeal against sentence
4. › Residual discretion to decline to intervene
5. › Whether residual discretion should be exercised
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31

Quick Take

A total effective sentence of 6 years 6 months' imprisonment for commercial dealing in approximately 746 grams of high-purity methylamphetamine (across multiple counts), 2.677 kg of cannabis, with firearms and $196,600 cash, infringes the first limb of the totality principle. A sentence of 8 years 6 months was substituted. Where individual sentences have been reduced for totality considerations, they will not be found manifestly inadequate in isolation unless the sentencing judge's approach to totality can be separately impugned.