Ibrahim v Orec

[1992] QCA 187

[1992] QCA 187

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

DEMACK J

CA NO 106 OF 1992

A J IBRAHIM	Respondent
and
MICHAEL ANTHONY OREC	Applicant

BRISBANE
... DATE 23/6/92
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for leave to appeal
against sentence. The sentence was one whereby the applicant was
convicted and fined $750 but a fine option order was than granted
obliging the applicant to perform 125 hours of community service;

he has already performed some of that service. The offence was that on a named date, as occupier of a place, he permitted that place to be used for unlawful possession of a dangerous drug; the drug in question was cannabis sativa.

The application really challenges the conviction and fine aspects only. The reason for the challenge is that it is said, as one can understand, that the order made below will affect, in certain ways, the applicant's career prospects.

The facts were that the police went to the applicant's home in suburban Brisbane interested apparently in another male person there. The dwelling was searched and the occupants, including the applicant were detained. A pipe and bowl of cannabis were located in the dwelling and the applicant admitted he knew what it was and that a friend had brought it to his house and the plan was that he, the applicant, was to participate in a smoke.

Counsel appearing for the applicant before us makes it clear which part of the order below he seeks to challenge but he is obliged to concede that the order imposed cannot be asserted to be outside a permissible range. He grounds his application really on the fact that the result for the applicant will be significant. He was, it is true, a 19 year old with no previous convictions and he was unemployed; he was co-operative with the police and he pleaded guilty. We are entitled to interfere only if it is established to our satisfaction that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. I am unable to say that the order made below was one which was not open to the Magistrate and I think we cannot accordingly regard ourselves as entitled to accede to the application and I would dismiss it.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is dismissed.

-----

3