Mummery, W.E. v. R [1985] FCA 37

Mummery, W.E. v. R [1985] FCA 37

The sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive and there was no error warranting appellate interference. The disparity between sentences was justified by significant factual distinctions between the appellant and Faint. The judge's remarks during sentencing did not prejudice the appellant or warrant intervention.

Parties
Appellant: William Eric Mummery; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Disparity Between Sentences, Supplying Drugs, Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Disparity Between Sentences Supplying Drugs Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Eric Mummery

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether there was unjustified disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of the co-offender, Faint
  3. 3 Whether remarks of the trial judge warranted intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive and there was no error warranting appellate interference. The disparity between sentences was justified by significant factual distinctions between the appellant and Faint. The judge's remarks during sentencing did not prejudice the appellant or warrant intervention.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.