R v Applewaite & Jones - [1996] QCA 533

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 533
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane
[R v. Applewaite] [R v. Jones]

C.A. No. 433 of 1996

THE QUEEN

SCOTT ANTHONY APPLEWAITE

(Applicant)

C.A. No. 434 of 1996

THE QUEEN

TREVOR JOHN JONES

(Applicant)
McPherson JA
Pincus JA
Thomas J

Judgment delivered 20 December 1996

Joint reasons for judgment McPherson JA and Thomas J; Pincus JA separate reasons, dissenting with respect to CA No. 433 of 1996.

APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
REFUSED

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Analysis of sentences in cannabis production cases - Factors influencing the level of sentence - Comparative schedule of cases - ss.8(d),(e) and 13 Drugs Misuse Act

Counsel:	Ms K. McGinness for the Appellants
Mr D. Bullock for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellants
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Respondent
Hearing Date: 18 November 1996 appeal against sentence. The applicants were convicted by a jury of producing cannabis	JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON JA and THOMAS J

Judgment delivered 20 December 1996

These matters were heard together. They are applications for extension of time to

exceeding the quantity specified in Schedule 3, and were sentenced by the Circuit Court Judge

on 30 August 1996.

Each applicant filled out an application for leave to appeal and signed it the day after,

that is on 31 August 1996, and handed it to his legal representative. Due to oversight by the

articled clerk the matter was not brought to the attention of the principal in time, and the notice

of appeal in each matter was not filed until 8 October 1996.

The delay is properly explained and was not the fault of the applicants personally. The

Crown did not oppose the granting of an extension.

The Court reserved the question of extending time, and on its invitation the parties have

argued the matter as upon an appeal.

The Sentences

Applewaite was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and Jones to two years'

imprisonment. They were jointly engaged upon the relevant venture, and the main factor

justifying a difference in the sentences was the more extensive criminal record of Jones.

The applicants were apprehended on 20 March 1996 in a bush area near Attie Creek via

Cardwell. An off-duty police sergeant and an environment ranger stumbled across their camp

whilst on a pig-shooting expedition. They found some freshly dug garden-beds and a "lean-to"

camp with a camouflaged net. There was no resistance, and the two men made, with one

exception, what would appear to be fairly frank admissions. The exception was Applewaite's

statement "We have only got a couple of hundred plants," whereas a count showed 504 cannabis

seedlings in starter-pots, and about 50 seedlings in an area of turned soil, which the prosecution

flatteringly described as a garden-bed. The plants were described as "very tiny". The analysts's

certificate states that the 52 seedlings weighed a total of approximately 1.4 grams whilst the 504 seedlings weighed a total…

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 Applewaite & Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Applewaite & Jones [1996] QCA 533
Case: [1996] QCA 533
Decision Date: 20 December 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved two defendants, Applewaite and Jones, who were convicted under the Drugs Misuse Act. They were sentenced for their involvement in the production of cannabis. The appeal against their sentences was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellants sought an extension of time to appeal against the sentences imposed on them by the lower court. The primary legal issues in this appeal were the appropriate factors to consider when determining the level of sentence in cannabis production cases, and whether the sentences imposed were within the correct range.

The court began by examining the statutory framework provided by sections 8(d), (e), and 13 of the Drugs Misuse Act. It noted the importance of considering a comparative schedule of cases when determining appropriate sentences. The court emphasised that the nature and extent of the defendants' involvement, the scale of the production, and the potential harm caused were crucial factors. The court also highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence while considering any mitigating circumstances. The appellants argued that their sentences were excessive and disproportionate to the nature of their involvement. However, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors and applied the law correctly.

Having considered the arguments presented, the Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing the sentences. The court found that the sentences were within the correct range, taking into account all relevant factors. The appellants' applications for an extension of time to appeal against their sentences were refused. The court found that the appellants had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. The sentences imposed by the lower court were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE 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.