R v Adams - [2003] QCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Adams [2003] QCA 22

PARTIES:

R
v
ADAMS, Christopher
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 340 of 2002
SC No 444 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Sentence imposed at first instance set aside, and instead a sentence of four months imprisonment imposed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and related charges – where no commercial element to offence – where applicant sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended after four months with an operation period of five years – where applicant had served the term of imprisonment at date of appeal – whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant previously convicted of same offence eight years prior – where applicant demonstrated a good employment history – where applicant became cannabis free during the period leading up to sentence – whether learned sentencing judge failed to take these factors into account

R v Ball [1999] QCA 427; CA No 250 of 1999, 8 October 1999, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Jerrard will deliver his reasons first.

JERRARD JA: On the 26th of September 2002, the applicant Christopher Adams, was sentenced on his plea of guilty to three charges on an ex officio indictment to a sentence of 12 months imprisonment to be suspended after four months for an operational period of five years.

The charges to which Mr Adams pleaded guilty were:

The unlawful production on 10th April 2002, of a quantity exceeding 500 grams of the dangerous drug cannabis sativa.
The unlawful possession on 10th April 2002, of a quantity exceeding 500 grams of the dangerous drug cannabis sativa.
Having in his possession on 10th April 2002, a quantity of things, namely plastic materials, pots, a padlock, a key, a quantity of electrical equipment, a cabinet, fans, heaters, a quantity of scanners and one air pump, for use in connection with the commission of the crime of producing that dangerous drug.

Mr Adams has in fact served the sentence of four months imprisonment and is now undergoing the suspension of the remaining period of imprisonment. He continues his application for leave to appeal against that sentence, which application was adjourned from…

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 [2003] QCA 22
Case: [2003] QCA 22
Decision Date: 5 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adams involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to charges related to the possession of cannabis. The offence did not involve any commercial element. The sentencing court imposed a term of imprisonment of 12 months, suspended after serving four months, with a five-year operational period. The applicant had already served the term of imprisonment by the time the appeal was heard. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to take into account various mitigating factors.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the sentencing judge failed to take into account certain mitigating factors. These factors included the lack of a commercial element in the offence, the applicant’s previous conviction for the same offence eight years prior, the applicant’s good employment history, and the fact that the applicant became cannabis free during the period leading up to the sentence. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of these considerations.

In assessing these issues, the court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. The court identified that the sentencing judge did not adequately take into account the mitigating factors, particularly the lack of a commercial element in the offence and the applicant’s good employment history and abstinence from cannabis use before sentencing. The court concluded that these factors warranted a more lenient sentence, and therefore, the sentence was set aside. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of four months imprisonment. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original sentence and imposing a new sentence of four months imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Sentence imposed at first instance set aside, and instead a sentence of four months imprisonment imposed

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 [2003] QCA 22
PARTIES:	R v ADAMS, Christopher (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 340 of 2002 SC No 444 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	5 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Sentence imposed at first instance set aside, and instead a sentence of four months imprisonment imposed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and related charges – where no commercial element to offence – where applicant sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended after four months with an operation period of five years – where applicant had served the term of imprisonment at date of appeal – whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant previously convicted of same offence eight years prior – where applicant demonstrated a good employment history – where applicant became cannabis free during the period leading up to sentence – whether learned sentencing judge failed to take these factors into account R v Ball [1999] QCA 427; CA No 250 of 1999, 8 October 1999, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent