Mussarri v WA

[2018] WASCA 46

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Discount for guilty plea
4. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA
5. › Whether 5% discount manifestly inadequate
6. › Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to give adequate reasons for discount
7. › Whether incongruity between co-offenders' discounts indicative of error
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Whether parity principle applies to discrete component of sentence
5. › Whether parity principle applies to s 9AA discount as distinct from ultimate sentencing outcome
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against sentence
3. › Appellate review of discretionary sentencing decision
4. › Whether miscarriage of justice occurred
5. › Whether different sentence should have been imposed
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31(3), s 31(4)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Dealing in prohibited drugs
5. › Methylamphetamine and heroin
6. › Sentencing considerations for drug trafficking offences
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 6(1)(c)

Quick Take

The parity principle does not apply to discrete components of a sentence such as the s 9AA guilty plea discount, but only to the ultimate sentencing outcome. However, incongruity in s 9AA discounts between co-offenders may support an inference of error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, particularly where a co-offender who pleaded guilty earlier receives a lower discount than co-offenders who pleaded guilty later, and the sentencing judge fails to explain the disparity. Even where such error is established, the appeal will be dismissed if the court is satisfied that no different sentence should have been imposed.