Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(5), s 32

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 27

Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465

Benter v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 245

Ho v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 108

Jordan v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 163

MOD v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 23

MXP v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 215; (2010) 41 WAR 149

Nguyen v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 81

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610

R v Faithfull [2004] WASCA 39; (2004) 142 A Crim R 554

Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17

Walgar v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 241

Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

2 MAZZA JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

3 The appellant entered fast-track pleas of guilty to three drug offences contained in an indictment and a number of summary offences contained in a notice under s 32 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).

4 The appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with an order that the appellant be eligible for parole.

5 The appellant, who is self-represented, seeks leave to appeal against this sentence on three grounds. In essence, he alleges that the total effective sentence infringed the totality principle having regard to:

(c) his cooperation with the police after his arrest.

6 The grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospect of succeeding and the appeal must be taken to be dismissed: s 27(2) and (3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).

7 The facts of the appellant's offending, his personal circumstances, the details of the appellant's cooperation and the sentencing remarks are contained in a schedule to these reasons. The schedule is subject to a confidentiality order. It will not be published save to the appellant and the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia.

Details of the penalties imposed by his Honour are as follows

Possession of 193.6 g of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply

Possession of 22.63 g of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply

Possession of 25 g of dexamphetamine with intent to sell or supply

8 Section 32 notice offences:

Possess a prohibited drug (less than 0.1 g amphetamine)

Possess a prohibited drug (0.21 g methylamphetamine)

Possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property ($6,880)

Possess a smoking utensil used for smoking a prohibited drug

Possess a smoking utensil used for smoking a prohibited drug

Possess a smoking utensil used for smoking a prohibited drug

9 The appellant contends that the learned sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to his fast-track pleas of guilty. As this court has said on many occasions, an allegation of a weighting error is not generally a valid ground of appeal and does not give rise to an appellable error: Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17 [76]. In any event, the learned sentencing judge made express reference to the appellant's pleas of guilty. As the appellant was sentenced prior to the introduction of s 9AA of the Sentencing Act, his Honour was under no obligation to specify the discount he gave for the pleas of guilty. It is clear from the sentences that were imposed that his Honour took this factor into account.

10 It is convenient to next deal with the appellant's contention that his Honour did not take into account his cooperation with the authorities. The relevant sentencing principles in this area are well known and have been recently examined in the cases of MXP v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 215; (2010) 41 WAR 149 and MOD v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 23. The appellant alleges that his Honour erred by not complying with the requirement in s 8(5) of the Sentencing Act to specify the discount he gave for the appellant's cooperation. This submission is erroneous. Section 8(5) of the Sentencing Act applies only to promises of future cooperation. The cooperation given by the appellant in this case was not of this nature and related only to cooperation given in the past.

11 I do not think that it is reasonably arguable that his Honour failed to take the appellant's cooperation into account. It is clear that his Honour had been given by the parties, in an agreed form, all the relevant information. His Honour referred, albeit very briefly, to the appellant's cooperation. Given the sensitive nature of such information, it is frequently the case that sentencing judges will deal with this issue in this way. The appellant's cooperation warranted some discount. The length of the total effective sentence reflects a discount for this factor. Again, the appellant's argument is essentially one of a weighting error. It has no reasonable prospect of success.

12 I will deal with the appellant's arguments with respect to the one transaction rule and the totality principle together. Both have been exhaustively examined in the decisions of this court. As to the totality principle, see Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 246, and as to the one transaction rule see R v Faithfull [2004] WASCA 39; (2004) 142 A Crim R 554.

13 The two principles are closely aligned. However the case is approached, the guiding principles are that the punishment imposed reflects the total criminality of what the appellant did: Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 [40]; Walgar v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 241 [9]; Ho v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 108 [16].

14 The appellant was found in possession of approximately 194 g of high purity methylamphetamine. He did so knowing that the drugs would be given to another and were destined for the streets. He was a willing courier and a dealer in methylamphetamine at street level. This is plainly shown by the substantial quantity of high purity methylamphetamine and the accompanying accoutrements of the drug trade found by the police. The quantity of the drug the subject of count 3 was acquired before the quantity the subject of count 1 and properly attracted a cumulative penalty.

15 The sentencing principles with respect to drug offences of the type committed by the appellant are well known. Considerations of punishment and specific deterrence are the main sentencing objectives: Bellissimo v The Queen (1996) 84 A Crim R 465, 471. The aim is to stop the trade in illicit substances which have such a devastating impact on the community. While matters personal to an offender are not irrelevant, they do not carry the same weight as in other kinds of offending. Although the appellant had entered pleas of guilty at the earliest stage, had cooperated with the police and had personal circumstances which were favourable, the appellant's offending was clearly very serious.

16 His Honour took into account all relevant sentencing considerations. His Honour reduced the total effective sentence he would otherwise have imposed to reflect the totality principle. The total effective sentence was within the range customarily imposed: see, for example, Benter v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 245; Nguyen v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 81 and Jordan v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 163.

17 This court cannot intervene unless the appellant identifies an implied or express error: Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82 [2]. No such error has been demonstrated. I would not give leave to appeal. The appeal must be dismissed.

1. Leave to appeal is refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.