Brooks v Tasmania - [2009] TASSC 121

[2009] TASSC 121

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Brooks v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 121

PARTIES:  BROOKS, Loretta Ann
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

FILE NO/S:  383/2009
DELIVERED ON:  23 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  10 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent, Porter and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Whether head sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for trafficking in methylamphetamine manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  A Hensley
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 121
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 121/2009
File No 383/2009

LORETTA ANN BROOKS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J
PORTER J
WOOD J
23 December 2009

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 121/2009
File No 383/2009

LORETTA ANN BROOKS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

TENNENT J

23 December 2009

I have had the opportunity to read the reasons of Wood J and agree with those reasons. I would also dismiss the appeal.
File No 383/2009

LORETTA ANN BROOKS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PORTER J

23 December 2009

I agree with the reasons for judgment of Wood J and would also dismiss the appeal.
File No 383/2009

LORETTA ANN BROOKS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J

23 December 2009

Appeal against sentence

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of trafficking in a controlled substance, namely, methylamphetamine, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s12(1), and sentenced to a period of 18 months' imprisonment with 8 months suspended on conditions. The appellant appeals the sentence as manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of offending

The circumstances of the offending were set out by the learned sentencing judge in terms that were not challenged and, in essence, are as follows. For a period of three years the appellant had trafficked in methylamphetamine. The offending period was from February 2004 to February 2007. On 2 February 2007, police searched the appellant's home and found a total of 44 grams of methylamphetamine. The police also found $2,560 in her purse. This money represented the proceeds of about three weeks' sales and was typical of the amount she would receive for sale transactions over such a time. The appellant's account that she had sold the drug at a price of $150 for half a gram was accepted by the learned sentencing judge. On the basis of this information it was inferred that the appellant had sold at least $120,000 worth of the drug over the preceding three years.

Circumstances of the offender

The appellant has convictions for less serious drug offences, some of which fall within the period of trafficking. These convictions were duly noted by the learned sentencing judge:

"You have…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brooks v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Brooks v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 121
Case: [2009] TASSC 121
Decision Date: 23 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellant, Brooks, against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for trafficking in methylamphetamine. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Brooks argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive, and as such, the court should interfere and impose a lesser sentence. The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate and if the court should grant the appeal on the grounds of the sentence being manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles and authorities concerning the circumstances in which a sentence may be considered manifestly excessive. It noted that the power to interfere with a sentence on appeal was limited and should only be exercised when the sentence was outside the range of sentences that a reasonable court could have imposed. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The reasoning was based on the principle that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a reasonable court could have imposed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for trafficking in methylamphetamine was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the limited role of appellate courts in interfering with a sentence unless it was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Orders