Harris v The Queen

[2016] VSCA 30

Victorian Court of Appeal3 March 2016

Ratio Decidendi

The selection of weight of narcotic as the chief factor to be taken into account in fixing a sentence for drug importation represents a departure from fundamental sentencing principle. The sentencer must impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, taking into account the diverse matters identified in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Quick Take

When sentencing for importation of a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, the court must consider where the quantity falls within the full spectrum of marketable quantity (from the threshold to the commercial quantity), not merely how many times the threshold is exceeded. A sentence of five years' imprisonment with a three-year non-parole period for importing 120 grams of a border controlled drug (where the marketable quantity threshold is 2 grams and the commercial quantity is 2 kg) was set aside and replaced with three years and one day imprisonment with a two-year non-parole period.

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Linked Principles

Legal principles extracted from this case

01The selection of weight of narcotic as the chief factor to be taken into account in fixing a sentence for drug importation represents a departure from fundamental sentencing principle. The sentencer must impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, taking into account the diverse matters identified in s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
02
03
04

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[2016] VSCA 30

CourtVSCA

JurisdictionVic

Decision Date3 March 2016

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Authorities Cited5›

Cases considered by Harris v The Queen

Referred to (5)

Harris v The Queen [2016] VSCA 30 The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39 Harper v The Queen [2011] VSCA 314 [2006] VSCA 185 Wong v R [2001] HCA 64

Subsequent Judicial Consideration3›

Cases that have considered Harris v The Queen

Referred to (3)

Vi v The Queen; Lach v The Queen [2017] VSCA 254 DPP (Cth) v Masange and Kachunga [2017] VSCA 204 Harris v The Queen [2016] VSCA 30

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

Vi v The Queen; Lach v The Queen [2017] VSCA 254Referred to

DPP (Cth) v Masange and Kachunga [2017] VSCA 204Referred to

Harris v The Queen [2016] VSCA 30Referred to

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue

On an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Wallaroo-Yorke rule for statutory demands requires the applicant to identify with specificity the offsetting claim relied upon, supported by evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine triable issue.

Harris v The Queen at [30]

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage.

Harris v The Queen at [37]