R v Adams - [2009] QCA 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Adams [2009] QCA 56

PARTIES:

R
v
ADAMS, Scott Nathan
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2007
SC No 394 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – applicant convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and sentenced to 10 and a half years imprisonment – applicant had favourable references – applicant submits that mitigating factors including guilty plea and rehabilitative prospects were not given adequate consideration – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – applicant and co-offender convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine – co-offender was head of trafficking operation – co-offender was convicted of trafficking for a period 10 months longer than applicant – co‑offender received 13 and a half years imprisonment and applicant received 10 and a half years – whether applicant's sentence lacked parity

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited

R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, considered
R v Filippa [2008] QSC 039, considered
R v Fischer [2007] QCA 105, considered
R v Lowe [2004] QCA 398, considered
R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, considered
R v Tran (2006) 162 A Crim R 188; [2006] QCA 174, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC and J R Hunter SC for the applicant
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

:McMURDO P Scott Nathan Adams pleaded guilty on 4 May 2007 to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, between 12 November 2003 and 9 December 2004. He was sentenced on 8 June 2007 to 10 and a half years imprisonment. A co-offender, Christopher John Plaszewski, who was charged on a separate indictment with one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine between 9 September 2003 and 9 December 2004, was also sentenced that day to 11 years imprisonment, having pleaded guilty on 10 May 2007. Both Adams and Plaszewski applied for leave to appeal against their sentences contending that they were manifestly excessive. Plaszewski subsequently abandoned his application. After a three week contested sentencing hearing, another co-offender, Todd Sean Filippa, was sentenced on 7 March 2008 for trafficking in methylamphetamine between 1 January 2003 and 9 December 2004 to 13 and a half years imprisonment. Mr M J Byrne QC who appears with Mr J R Hunter SC for Adams, contends that Adams's sentence is either manifestly excessive or that, when…

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 Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Adams [2009] QCA 56
Case: [2009] QCA 56
Decision Date: 20 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and sentenced to 10 and a half years imprisonment. The appellant's appeal against sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to consider the arguments presented by the appellant regarding the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea and the prospects for rehabilitation, were not given adequate consideration, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the appellant argued that the sentence lacked parity with the sentence imposed on the co-offender, who had a more significant role in the trafficking operation.

The Court of Appeal considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The Court found that the primary judge had considered the mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea and the prospects for rehabilitation, and had given them appropriate weight in determining the sentence. The Court also considered the need for deterrence and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the primary judge had exercised his discretion reasonably in imposing the sentence.

The Court of Appeal also considered the argument regarding parity between co-offenders. The Court found that while the co-offender had a more significant role in the trafficking operation, the primary judge had considered the differing roles of the appellant and the co-offender in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not disproportionate to the sentence imposed on the co-offender.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Adams [2009] QCA 56
PARTIES:	R v ADAMS, Scott Nathan (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 150 of 2007 SC No 394 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – applicant convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and sentenced to 10 and a half years imprisonment – applicant had favourable references – applicant submits that mitigating factors including guilty plea and rehabilitative prospects were not given adequate consideration – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – applicant and co-offender convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine – co-offender was head of trafficking operation – co-offender was convicted of trafficking for a period 10 months longer than applicant – co‑offender received 13 and a half years imprisonment and applicant received 10 and a half years – whether applicant's sentence lacked parity Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, considered R v Filippa [2008] QSC 039, considered R v Fischer [2007] QCA 105, considered R v Lowe [2004] QCA 398, considered R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, considered R v Tran (2006) 162 A Crim R 188; [2006] QCA 174, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC and J R Hunter SC for the applicant P F Rutledge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent