R v Adamovics - [2006] QCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Adamovics [2006] QCA 77

PARTIES:

R
v
ADAMOVICS, Debra Faye
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 306 of 2005
SC No 942 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 March 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where the applicant pleaded guilty to the production and possession of methylamphetamine and was sentenced to an effective term of three and a half years imprisonment – this offence was in breach of a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment wholly suspended with an operational period of four years, imposed for similar offences – where the applicant contends that insufficient weight was given to her co-operation with authorities, her subsequent rehabilitation and the ill health of her parents as factors justifying an earlier eligibility for post-prison community based release – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Jeffs [2005] QCA 35; CA No 422 of 2004, 25 February 2005, considered

COUNSEL:

D F Adamovics (self-represented) for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: After pleading guilty on 3 November 2005 to production of methylamphetamine, possession of methylamphetamine and possession of scales, the applicant was sentenced to an effective term of three and a-half years' imprisonment.

At the same time the learned sentencing Judge dealt with the breach of a suspended sentence imposed on 18 May 2004. On that occasion the applicant had pleaded guilty to production of methylamphetamine and possession of methylamphetamine and had been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of four years.

On 3 November 2005 the sentencing Judge ordered that the whole of the 18 month term be served concurrently with the other sentence of three and a-half years' imprisonment. The applicant contends that in all the circumstances the sentence imposed on 3 November 2005 was manifestly excessive.

The offences dealt with on 18 May 2004 resulted from a police raid on the applicant's premises on 24 December 2002. A small quantity of methylamphetamine was located as well as some other drug paraphernalia. Material placed before the Court with respect to those offences established that the applicant had been dealing in Sudafed with a view to it being used for the production of methylamphetamine and in his sentencing remarks on that occasion, the Chief Justice noted that there was a “commercial motivation” and that the applicant was making “good money”.

As the sentencing remarks reveal, leniency was extended…

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 R v Adamovics

Details

AGLC: R v Adamovics [2006] QCA 77
Case: [2006] QCA 77
Decision Date: 20 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Adamovics, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to the production and possession of methylamphetamine, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant was sentenced to an effective term of three and a half years imprisonment. This sentence was imposed in breach of a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment, which had been wholly suspended with an operational period of four years for similar offences. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight was given to her co-operation with authorities, her subsequent rehabilitation, and the ill health of her parents as factors justifying an earlier eligibility for post-prison community-based release.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The applicant contended that the court had not appropriately balanced the various mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence. The court was required to consider whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the offending that it shocked the conscience of the court. The court also had to assess whether the applicant's co-operation with authorities, her rehabilitation efforts, and the health of her parents were sufficiently recognised and weighed in the sentencing process.

The court found that while the applicant had co-operated with authorities and had made efforts towards rehabilitation, these factors had been considered by the sentencing judge. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court noted that the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence warranted a substantial custodial sentence. The court further found that the applicant's co-operation and rehabilitation efforts were commendable, but did not necessarily warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the offending and did not shock the conscience of the court.

Accordingly, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances and did not warrant interference by way of appeal. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Adamovics [2006] QCA 77
PARTIES:	R v ADAMOVICS, Debra Faye (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 306 of 2005 SC No 942 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	20 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 March 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where the applicant pleaded guilty to the production and possession of methylamphetamine and was sentenced to an effective term of three and a half years imprisonment – this offence was in breach of a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment wholly suspended with an operational period of four years, imposed for similar offences – where the applicant contends that insufficient weight was given to her co-operation with authorities, her subsequent rehabilitation and the ill health of her parents as factors justifying an earlier eligibility for post-prison community based release – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances R v Jeffs [2005] QCA 35; CA No 422 of 2004, 25 February 2005, considered
COUNSEL:	D F Adamovics (self-represented) for the applicant R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent