Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Blasco vs. The State of Western Australia - (12 Feb 2021)

The severity of a sentence imposed on an individual count generally falls to be assessed in light of the sentences imposed in respect of the other counts

Criminal

Present is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted, on his pleas of guilty, of eight counts in an indictment. Six of the convictions were for offering to sell or supply a prohibited drug, contrary to Section 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1985 (WA) (Misuse of Drugs Act). Two of the convictions were for possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply, contrary to Section 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The sole ground of appeal is that, having regard to the overall criminality involved and in all of the circumstances of the case, the total effective sentence of 8 years imprisonment infringed the first limb of the totality principle.

The range of sentences customarily imposed for a crime does not establish the range of a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. Sentences customarily imposed in comparable cases provide a yardstick or reference point for ensuring broad consistency in sentencing, bearing in mind the scope for significant variations in relevant sentencing factors, and that there is no single correct sentence. Where there is a challenge on totality grounds, the severity of a sentence imposed on an individual count generally falls to be assessed in light of the sentences imposed in respect of the other counts and its contribution to the total effective sentence. A heavy individual sentence (which is not manifestly excessive) may be softened by an order that it be served concurrently with sentences imposed in relation to the other counts. A relatively light sentence (which is not manifestly inadequate) may, as a practical matter, have increased severity if it is ordered to be served cumulatively.

The Appellant committed a series of serious drug offences over the course of a number of months. The offences were not isolated events but reflected the reality that, the Appellant was a participant in a substantial business of distributing prohibited drugs. The Appellant was not youthful or inexperienced for sentencing purposes. The Appellant was not otherwise of good character. His previous convictions for serious drug dealing offences underscored the importance of personal deterrence as a sentencing factor. The Appellant's risk of reoffending was high. It was not suggested by the appellant that any of the individual sentences imposed were excessive and, indeed, the individual sentences were within the appropriate range of sentences. A total effective sentence of 8 years imprisonment properly reflected that total criminality. The total effective sentence imposed on the appellant was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : SENTENCE   QUANTUM   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved