SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Armstrong [2005] QCA 116
PARTIES:
R
v
ARMSTRONG, Neil Anthony(applicant)
FILE NO/S:
CA No 83 of 2005
SC No 482 of 2004
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
15 April 2005DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
15 April 2005
JUDGES:
McMurdo P and Keane JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted;
2. Appeal allowed by setting aside the sentence and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be imprisoned for 18 months and that the sentence be suspended forthwith for an operational period of 2 years.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of 3 years for unlawful possession of methylamphetamine in excess of 2 grams – where applicant had served 8 months in pre-sentence custody which was taken into account – where applicant made rehabilitation efforts and drug-free for some time – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive
R v Brooker [2002] QCA 101; CA No 35 of 2002; 20 March 2002
R v Christie [2000] QCA 165; CA No 430 of 1999; 8 May 2000, considered
R v Hesketh; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2004] QCA 116; CA No 411 of 2003; 23 April 2004, considered
R v Kennedy [2000] QCA 140; CA No 23 of 2000; 14 April 2000, considered
R v Tabe [2004] QCA 17; CA No 376 of 2003; 10 February 2004, distinguishedR v Woods [2004] QCA 204; CA No 99 of 2004; 18 June 2004, considered
COUNSEL:
BW Farr for the applicant
M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
PHILIPPIDES J: Neil Anthony Armstrong was convicted on 28 February 2005 on his plea to a charge of unlawfully possessing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding 2 grams. He was sentenced on 3 March 2005 to two and a half years' imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of three years. A declaration was made in respect of pre-sentence custody of 237 days from 21 January 2004 to 14 September 2004. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.
The applicant, who was born on 20 September 1969 was 34 years of age at the time of the offence and 35 at sentence.
The offence came to light when police executed a search warrant at the applicant's home at Loganholme on 22 January 2004. During the search they located a large clipseal bag which in turn contained three other clipseal bags.
One clipseal bag contained 14.044 grams of moist brown substance which was analysed to be 5.9 per…
Continue reading R v Armstrong
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Armstrong [2005] QCA 116
- Case
- [2005] QCA 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles of sentencing and the relevant case law. It considered the principles of proportionality and the need for a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the interests of society. The court also considered the relevant sentencing guidelines and the circumstances of the case, including Armstrong's efforts to rehabilitate and his drug-free status for some time. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the appeal should be allowed.
The appeal was allowed by setting aside the sentence and in lieu thereof ordering that Armstrong be imprisoned for 18 months and that the sentence be suspended forthwith for an operational period of 2 years. The court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and that a lesser sentence was appropriate. The court also noted that the operational period of 3 years was excessive and that a shorter operational period was appropriate. The court's decision highlights the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider the circumstances of each case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted;
2. Appeal allowed by setting aside the sentence and in lieu thereof order that the applicant be imprisoned for 18 months and that the sentence be suspended forthwith for an operational period of 2 years.
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.