R v Anderson Summary | CaseChat AU

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Anderson [2002] QCA 466

PARTIES:

R
v
ANDERSON, Paul William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 225 of 2002
SC No 296 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

1 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 November 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

The application is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where applicant appeals against his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment for unlawfully trafficking in heroin – where applicant had a substantial prior criminal history including drug offending but had not previously been imprisoned – where there was no circumstance obliging the learned sentencing Judge to add any recommendation for early eligibility for parole

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Noel Woodall & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment following his conviction by a jury of the offence of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in heroin.

The trafficking occurred over the period June to November 2000 at a time when the applicant was aged 42 to 43 years. It involved 80 to 100 identified sales to one Buxton for approximately $7,000. They were therefore smallish street level sales. Sometimes the applicant used couriers.

The sentencing Judge took the view that the applicant probably had other customers and that was a reasonable inference. He could obtain the drug easily. He used a car and a mobile phone. He had a drug problem himself and had attempted to wean himself off narcotics but not completely successfully.

He had a substantial prior criminal history including drug offending, but he had not previously been imprisoned. Significantly, he was on the 17th of July 2000 sentenced in the Magistrates Court for possession of dangerous drugs on the 26th of June 2000, which was at the beginning of the trafficking period.

The sentence of eight years' imprisonment following conviction at a trial for trafficking of this order sits comfortably within the range suggested by a number of comparable cases: Le [1996] 2 Queensland Reports 516 and 520 to 521; Le [2001] Queensland Court of Appeal 290; Giang, Court of Appeal 313 of 1997 and Pascoe, Court of Appeal 184 of 1997.

The applicant having gone to trial, there was no circumstance obliging the learned Judge to add any recommendation for early eligibility for parole. I would refuse the application.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

‑‑‑‑‑

The matter of R v Anderson involved an appeal against the applicant's sentence for unlawfully trafficking in heroin. The applicant, who had a substantial prior criminal history involving drug offences but had not previously been imprisoned, was sentenced to eight years in prison. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate given the circumstances, particularly in light of the applicant's criminal history and the absence of any circumstances necessitating a recommendation for early eligibility for parole.

The court examined the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge, considering the principles of sentencing and the specific factors relevant to the applicant's case. It was noted that the applicant's substantial criminal history, including drug offences, warranted a significant sentence. However, the court also acknowledged that the applicant had not previously been imprisoned, which was a mitigating factor. The court found that there were no circumstances that required the sentencing judge to recommend early eligibility for parole. The court concluded that the sentence of eight years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, taking into account all relevant factors.

In light of the above, the court refused the application, upholding the original sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, considering the applicant's criminal history and the absence of any compelling circumstances for early parole eligibility.

R v Anderson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Anderson [2002] QCA 466
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Paul William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 225 of 2002 SC No 296 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	1 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 November 2002
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	The application is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where applicant appeals against his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment for unlawfully trafficking in heroin – where applicant had a substantial prior criminal history including drug offending but had not previously been imprisoned – where there was no circumstance obliging the learned sentencing Judge to add any recommendation for early eligibility for parole
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Noel Woodall & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent