Chandler v The Queen

[2010] VSCA 338

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2007 0938

MARK DONALD CHANDLER

v

THE QUEEN

S APCR 2007 0956

CANER PAKSOY

v

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P and WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	16 June, 17 November and 2 December 2010
DATE OF ORDERS	2 December 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	9 December 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 338
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Chandler & Paksoy (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Campton, 18 December 2007)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentencing – Trafficking drug of dependence – Large commercial quantity – Appellants were manufacturers of drug – No less culpable than distributors – Sentencing range – Consistency of sentencing – Comparable cases – Delay – Rehabilitation – Severe clinical depression making imprisonment more burdensome – Sentences manifestly excessive – Appeals allowed – Resentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant (Chandler)	Mr P G Priest QC with Mr T Kassimatis (hearing) Mr J C Stanley (orders)	Bayside Solicitors Vic Pty Ltd
For the Appellant (Paksoy)	Mr R Richter QC with Mr C B Boyce (hearing) Mr J Slucki (Sol) (orders)	Grigor Lawyers

MAXWELL P
WEINBERG JA:

1. Mark Chandler and Caner Paksoy each pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine (and to certain other counts).  They were sentenced in the County Court on 18 December 2007, as set out in Table A below.  Their appeals against sentence were heard together. 

1. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, we announced that the appeals would be allowed and that we would publish our reasons ‘as soon as practicable’. Because more than two and a half years had by then passed since sentence was imposed in the County Court, it seemed to us appropriate that each appellant should have the opportunity to make a submission, as on a plea in mitigation, based on up-to-date material.  Their respective counsel indicated that they wished to take up that opportunity. 

1. In the event, it has taken many months for those supplementary submissions to be filed.  The delay appears to have been attributable, in a large part, to difficulties experienced by the respective solicitors for the appellants in obtaining relevant information from Corrections Victoria and, in the case of Mr Chandler, a supplementary expert’s report.  It is only to be regretted that, in a case which has already been bedevilled by delay, the appellants have had to wait even longer to learn of the outcome of their appeals.  The information sought from Corrections Victoria was of a routine kind and should have been able to be supplied within a matter of days, not months.

1. As set out below, we took the supplementary information into account in reaching our conclusion as to the appropriate resentencing.  On 2 December 2010, the appellants were resentenced as set out in Table B at the conclusion of the reasons. 

Background facts

1. On…