Young, Christopher John Keith v. The Queen [1981] FCA 96

Young, Christopher John Keith v. The Queen [1981] FCA 96

The sentences and non-parole period imposed by the Chief Justice were not manifestly excessive or erroneous, given the amount of cannabis involved, the appellant's background, and the legislative policy reflected in the Prohibited Drugs Act.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher John Keith Young; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prohibited Drugs, Sentencing, Parole
Criminal Law Prohibited Drugs Sentencing Parole

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Keith Young

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether sufficient weight was given to age, past work record, and rehabilitation
  3. 3 Whether the non-parole period fixed was too long

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences and non-parole period imposed by the Chief Justice were not manifestly excessive or erroneous, given the amount of cannabis involved, the appellant's background, and the legislative policy reflected in the Prohibited Drugs Act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal will be dismissed.