Law v The Queen

[2019] WASCA 81

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Material error of fact
5. › Finding as to offender's role in criminal hierarchy
6. › Whether finding reasonably open on the evidence
7. › Whether error capable of affecting actual sentence imposed
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Sentencing judge not bound by agreed position of prosecution and defence
5. › Whether sentencing judge entitled to make own evaluation of evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Prior criminal record
4. › Whether prior record aggravates current offending
5. › Relevance to character and moral culpability
6. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(m)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders sentenced by different judges
5. › Whether disparity in sentences gives rise to justifiable sense of grievance

Quick Take

A sentencing judge is entitled to depart from the common position of prosecution and defence as to an offender's role, but the finding must be reasonably open on the whole of the evidence, including the sentencing remarks and findings of the judge who sentenced the co-offender. Where a co-offender has been found by another judge to have played a 'pivotal role' in the same and more serious offending, a finding that the appellant had a 'more significant role' based primarily on age difference, overseas criminal history involving different drugs years earlier, and intercepted conversations viewed in isolation, is not reasonably open.