MJB v Queensland Police Service

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MJB  v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 80

PARTIES:

MJB

(Appellant)

And

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERIVCE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3278/12

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Section 222 Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

22 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2013

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Application to extend time in which to appeal allowed. Appeal upheld. Sentence varied by ordering that no conviction be recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal against severity of sentence – self represented defendants – recording of conviction

COUNSEL:

J Buckland for the appellant

W Cloake for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Buckland Allen Criminal Lawyers for the appellant

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. The appellant pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 11 July 2012 to one offence of possessing dangerous drugs under s 9(d) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986. He was convicted and fined $350. He appeals against the severity of that sentence.

Facts

1. The facts of the case can be stated very briefly. The matter was dealt with expeditiously in the Magistrates Court. 

1. The plaintiff was born on 3 March 1987.  He had a very minor criminal history.  On 12 September 2005 he’d been dealt with for two offences of unauthorised dealings with shop goods and possessing graffiti instruments, which offences occurred on 17 and 23 August 2005.  He was then 18 years of age. Convictions were not recorded.  He is a mechanic by trade. 

1. On 24 June 2012 when he was 25 years of age he was stopped by police at 12.05 am in Warner Street, Fortitude Valley.  He was found to be in possession of three pills containing 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as Ecstasy.  He said he had purchased the pills for $25 each and that they were for his personal use. 

The court proceedings

1. The appellant was un-represented and pleaded guilty.  The facts I’ve outlined were presented to the Court.  The full extent of his submissions is as follows;

“BENCH:Just stand up. You’ve heard those facts.  Do you accept them as correct?

DEFENDANT: Yes your Honour.

BENCH:Have you read through this?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

BENCH:Do you agree that relates to you?  Is there anything you wish to say?

DEFENDANT: No your Honour.

BENCH:Have you got a drug problem or anything like that?

DEFENDANT: No your Honour.

BENCH:What’s your occupation?

DEFENDANT: Mechanic.

BENCH:Is a conviction for this offence going to affect your future employment?

DEFENDANT: No. I wouldn’t think so.”

1. The Magistrate then gave his decision. He very briefly said that he’d taken into account the appellants plea of guilty, his previous criminal history, the fact he didn’t have any other drug related matters and the fact he didn’t have any drug problem.  He indicated a conviction would be recorded and that he was fined $350.  The appellant was given time to pay. 

The appeal

1. The appellant submits that the recording of a conviction makes the sentence manifestly excessive.  He does not object to the amount of the fine that was imposed. 

1. It seems…