Ha v WA

[2019] WASCA 69

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. › Cultivation and possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply
5. › Totality principle
6. › Whether total effective sentence bore proper relationship to overall criminality
7. › Whether cumulative sentences should have been ordered to be served partly concurrently
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1), 7(1), 34(1), 34(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeals against sentence
4. › Discretionary nature of sentencing
5. › Implied error
6. › Whether total effective sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 31
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Cannabis cultivation
5. › Role of offender in commercial enterprise
6. › Relevance of scale and sophistication of operation
7. › Sentencing range for 'gardeners' or 'crop-sitters'

Quick Take

A total effective sentence of 5 years' imprisonment for a labourer employed to cultivate and harvest cannabis in a sophisticated commercial operation (112 plants, 29.8 kg cannabis buds) was reduced to 3 years and 3 months on totality grounds. There is no general rule that sentences for cultivation and possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply, committed on the same occasion, must be concurrent; the question is whether the aggregate is proportionate to overall criminality. The sentencing range for 'gardeners' in commercial cannabis operations falls between the range for mere crop-sitters and that for those at the upper end of cultivation enterprises.