R v Anderson - [2015] QCA 17

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Anderson [2015] QCA 17

PARTIES:

R
v
ANDERSON, Stuart William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 247 of 2014
SC No 508 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

2. The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months on Count 8 to be served concurrently with the sentences for Counts 7, 9 and 11.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to eleven counts on an ex officio indictment – where the offences were producing a dangerous drug (Counts 1 & 2), possessing a dangerous drug in excess of two grams (Count 3), possessing a dangerous drug (Counts 4-6), possessing relevant substances (Count 7), possessing relevant things (Count 8), possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug (Count 9), possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug (Count 10) and possessing things for use in connection with producing a dangerous drug (Count 11) – where the applicant was sentenced for each of Counts 1, 2 and 10 to three years’ imprisonment suspended after nine months for an operational period of four years, for each of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 to twelve months’ imprisonment suspended after four months for an operational period of three years and for each of Counts 7, 9 and 11 to six months’ imprisonment – where the application was that the sentence was manifestly excessive considering the mitigating circumstances, including rehabilitation and the unlikelihood of re-offending

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – whether the primary judge erred by failing to sentence in accordance with the factual basis accepted by him in two significant aspects; the first concerned the complexity of the applicant’s drug production and the second, the applicant’s rehabilitation; and whether the primary judge gave proper weight to mitigating circumstances namely that the applicant had no prior convictions related to drug use and had been rehabilitated and abstained from drug use for a lengthy period prior to the sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – whether adequate reasons were given for sentence namely that the primary judge failed to express reference to rehabilitation achieved up until sentence and that the recitation of the statutory list of sentencing factors did not amount to consideration of those factors

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the primary judge did not impose…

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 Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2015] QCA 17
Case: [2015] QCA 17
Decision Date: 24 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anderson, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The applicant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of drug-related offences, including producing and possessing dangerous drugs, and related substances and equipment. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the primary judge had failed to adequately consider mitigating factors such as rehabilitation and the absence of prior convictions. The applicant also sought a reconsideration of the sentence for Count 8, which involved the possession of relevant things, as no sentence had been imposed for this count. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was excessive or inadequate, whether the primary judge had correctly applied the sentencing principles, and if adequate reasons were given for the sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, whether the primary judge had erred in not adequately considering the complexity of the drug production and the applicant's rehabilitation, and whether the judge had properly weighed the mitigating circumstances, such as the applicant's rehabilitation and lack of prior convictions. The court also needed to determine if adequate reasons were provided for the sentence and whether the omission of a sentence for Count 8 warranted a specific term of imprisonment.

The court held that the appeal against the sentence was not successful. The judge found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive considering all the circumstances, including the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The court noted that the primary judge had considered the complexity of the drug production and the applicant's rehabilitation, as well as other mitigating factors. The judge also determined that the primary judge had adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors, despite not explicitly mentioning every factor. As for Count 8, the court agreed with the joint submission of the parties that a sentence of six months’ imprisonment should be imposed for this count, to be served concurrently with the sentences for Counts 7, 9 and 11.

The final orders of the court were to refuse leave to appeal against the sentence and to impose a term of imprisonment of six months on Count 8, to be served concurrently with the sentences for Counts 7, 9 and 11.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

2. The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months on Count 8 to be served concurrently with the sentences for Counts 7, 9 and 11.

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 Anderson [2015] QCA 17
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Stuart William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 247 of 2014 SC No 508 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2015
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal against sentence refused. 2. The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months on Count 8 to be served concurrently with the sentences for Counts 7, 9 and 11.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to eleven counts on an ex officio indictment – where the offences were producing a dangerous drug (Counts 1 & 2), possessing a dangerous drug in excess of two grams (Count 3), possessing a dangerous drug (Counts 4-6), possessing relevant substances (Count 7), possessing relevant things (Count 8), possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug (Count 9), possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug (Count 10) and possessing things for use in connection with producing a dangerous drug (Count 11) – where the applicant was sentenced for each of Counts 1, 2 and 10 to three years’ imprisonment suspended after nine months for an operational period of four years, for each of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 to twelve months’ imprisonment suspended after four months for an operational period of three years and for each of Counts 7, 9 and 11 to six months’ imprisonment – where the application was that the sentence was manifestly excessive considering the mitigating circumstances, including rehabilitation and the unlikelihood of re-offending CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – whether the primary judge erred by failing to sentence in accordance with the factual basis accepted by him in two significant aspects; the first concerned the complexity of the applicant’s drug production and the second, the applicant’s rehabilitation; and whether the primary judge gave proper weight to mitigating circumstances namely that the applicant had no prior convictions related to drug use and had been rehabilitated and abstained from drug use for a lengthy period prior to the sentence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – whether adequate reasons were given for sentence namely that the primary judge failed to express reference to rehabilitation achieved up until sentence and that the recitation of the statutory list of sentencing factors did not amount to consideration of those factors CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the primary judge did not impose…