Humes v WA

[2023] WASCA 110

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against sentence
3. › Manifestly excessive sentence
4. › Possession of trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
5. › Role of offender as courier in commercial drug trafficking operation
6. › Whether sentence of 6 years 2 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1)(a), 34(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Relevant sentencing considerations
5. › General and personal deterrence
6. › Quantity and purity of drugs
7. › Nature and level of participation in drug trafficking
8. › Commercial gain
9. › Effect of increase in maximum penalty
10. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1)(a), 34(1)(a)
11. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Remorse
5. › Whether sentencing judge erred in finding appellant not genuinely remorseful
6. › Onus on offender to establish remorse on balance of probabilities
7. › Distinction between remorse and regret for consequences
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Express error
4. › Whether sentencing judge erred in treating uncharged conduct as aggravating factor
5. › Whether finding that cash confirmed commercial nature of operation constituted error

Quick Take

A sentence of 6 years 2 months' imprisonment for a low-level courier in temporary possession of 166.3 grams of methylamphetamine (80-81% purity) was manifestly excessive; 5 years' imprisonment was substituted. The case confirms that brief or fleeting possession and a low-level role in a commercial drug trafficking operation are significant factors in assessing the seriousness of the offending, even where the quantity is significant and the offender was paid for their involvement.