R v Ajelara - [2015] QCA 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ajelara [2015] QCA 56

PARTIES:

R
v
AJELARA, Nosiru Iyanda
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 168 of 2014
SC No 630 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Atkinson and Applegarth JJ
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to an attempt to possess a marketable quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug – where a package containing methamphetamine was intercepted by customs – where the applicant collected the package during a controlled operation by the police – where the applicant has a prior conviction for a serious drug offence – where the applicant’s family would suffer hardship due to his imprisonment – where the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(p)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.1, s 307.6(1)

Omorogbe v R (2013) 234 A Crim R 556; [2013] NSWCCA 201, considered
R v Calis[2013] QCA 165, cited
R v Huston; ex parte Cth DPP; R v Fox; ex parte Cth DPP; R v Henke; ex parte Cth DPP (2011) 219 A Crim R 209; [2011] QCA 350, cited
R v Oprea[2009] QCA 184, cited
R v Taru [2002] NSWCCA 391, cited
R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
N V Weston for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Applegarth J and the order he proposes.
ATKINSON J: I have read the reasons of Applegarth J. I agree that, for those reasons, the application should be refused.
APPLEGARTH J: The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge that on 3 April 2013 he attempted to possess a marketable quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine. On 11 June 2014 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two and a half years. He applies for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was, in the circumstances, manifestly excessive.
The offence
On 23 March 2013 a package that had been sent from India was intercepted by customs officers in Sydney. The package was addressed to a Daniel Wilson of 5 Augustus Street, Corinda, Queensland, and there was a mobile telephone number given as his contact number. The package contained a metal cog, and inside the cog was methamphetamine powder…

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 Ajelara

Details

AGLC: R v Ajelara [2015] QCA 56
Case: [2015] QCA 56
Decision Date: 17 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Ajelara, the applicant appeals against his sentence imposed following a guilty plea to an attempt to possess a marketable quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's plea of guilty, his prior conviction for a serious drug offence, and the potential hardship his family would face due to his imprisonment. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the factors that must be taken into account in assessing the severity of a sentence. It considered the role of the court in reviewing the sentence and the appropriate standard of review in such cases.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the sentence imposed on the applicant was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and took into account the relevant mitigating factors. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed. As a result, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

The court did not make any further orders beyond the refusal of the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant's sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years remains in effect.

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 Ajelara [2015] QCA 56
PARTIES:	R v AJELARA, Nosiru Iyanda (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 168 of 2014 SC No 630 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Atkinson and Applegarth JJ 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to an attempt to possess a marketable quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug – where a package containing methamphetamine was intercepted by customs – where the applicant collected the package during a controlled operation by the police – where the applicant has a prior conviction for a serious drug offence – where the applicant’s family would suffer hardship due to his imprisonment – where the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(p) Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.1, s 307.6(1) Omorogbe v R (2013) 234 A Crim R 556; [2013] NSWCCA 201, considered R v Calis[2013] QCA 165, cited R v Huston; ex parte Cth DPP; R v Fox; ex parte Cth DPP; R v Henke; ex parte Cth DPP (2011) 219 A Crim R 209; [2011] QCA 350, cited R v Oprea[2009] QCA 184, cited R v Taru [2002] NSWCCA 391, cited R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf N V Weston for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent