Childs v WA

[2023] WASCA 145

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. › Drug offences
5. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
6. › Anabolic steroids
7. › Whether sentence on individual count manifestly excessive
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 34(1)(aa)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against sentence
3. › Totality principle
4. › First limb
5. › Multiple drug offences
6. › Whether total effective sentence bore proper relationship to overall criminality
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Relevance of type of drug
5. › Anabolic steroids
6. › Whether steroids should be treated as equivalent to other prohibited drugs
7. › Relevance of scheduled quantities in assessing seriousness
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), sch V div 2, sch VII div 2
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Role of offender in criminal enterprise
5. › Storeman in large-scale commercial operation
6. › Not a principal
7. › Financial motivation

Quick Take

When sentencing for offences involving anabolic steroids under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), the different quantities prescribed in the schedules for steroids compared to other drugs (e.g., 25 times higher thresholds than for methylamphetamine) are relevant in assessing seriousness, though not determinative. It would be wrong to equate a commercial operation involving multiple kilograms of steroids with one involving equivalent quantities of methylamphetamine. However, a simple mathematical division of steroid quantities by the ratio of scheduled thresholds is an overly simplistic approach to comparison.