Former Rebels boss Karl Labrook loses bid to appeal jail term slapped on top of stint he’s already serving

Former Rebels supremo Karl Labrook has lost his bid to appeal a jail term he was handed while already imprisoned over other offences. He was sentenced to 14 months in July last year, with parole eligibility after serving half, after being found with $207,850 on the back seat of his BMW in Ridgewood in December 2022. They also charged him over $247,700 found at the Ascot house of co-accused Kellie Kersley hours later. Prosecutors argued that Labrook had knowledge and control of all of the cash, which he unsuccessfully argued at trial were club funds from legitimately collected sources including the sale of motorbikes and alcohol at clubhouse bars. The 54-year-old claimed it was being saved for a High Court challenge against WA’s tough bikie laws. Then in October, he pleaded guilty to possessing $30,145 of unlawfully obtained money and 9.86 gm of methylamphetamine, found when he was stopped by police while driving in Morawa in April 2023. An appeal ruling on Thursday revealed officers had observed white crystal material on his side window before searching the vehicle and found the rest “scattered throughout”. He was sentenced to four months for the cash and three months for the drugs, to run cumulatively, both upon each other and also upon the sentence he is already serving. That was despite the magistrate accepting that Labrook had just “confiscated” the meth from his spouse while they were arguing, ripping the bag as he grabbed it - sending the contents flying. Justifying her sentence, the magistrate noted, among other things, that Labrook had been before the court “on numerous occasions in relation to drug-related offending”. But Labrook’s counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, pointing to the “uniqueness” of the circumstances surrounding the meth possession, saying the term for that should have been served concurrently with the other offence. Supreme Court Justice Alain Musikanth refused leave to appeal. “It is (in) my view difficult to conclude that the magistrate, in the exercise of her discretion, did anything other than carefully and appropriately balance all relevant sentencing considerations before imposing the sentence,” he said.