R v Atkins

[2007] QCA 309

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Atkins [2007] QCA 309

PARTIES:

R
v
ATKINS, Michael Ian
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 141 of 2007
SC No 1078 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

25 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2007

JUDGES:

Holmes JA, Jones and Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced to six years imprisonment for trafficking a dangerous drug under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – whether sentence manifestly excessive.

Drugs Misuse Act 1986(Qld) s 5(a), s 9(a), s 9(b)(ii)

R v O’Brien [2006] QCA 482; CA No 259 of 2006, 20 November 2006, considered
R v Taylor[2006] QCA 459; CA No 156 2006, 10 November 2006, considered

COUNSEL:

M E Johnson for the applicant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan and Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

JONES J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him on 8 June 2007 in respect of three offences against the Drugs Misuse Act. The details are, (1) between 14 March 2004 and 21 April 2004 trafficking in methylamphetamine, six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after 2 years; (2) on 10 February 2006, possession of methylamphetamine, 18 months imprisonment; (3) possession of cannabis sativa, no penalty imposed but a conviction recorded.

As the second term of imprisonment was ordered to be served concurrently, this appeal is concerned only with the penalty imposed on the first offence - trafficking.  The applicant was born on 21 April 1975 and was, at the time of these first offences, 32 years old.  The circumstances of the trafficking were established by means of the intercepts of telephone calls between the applicant and an established drug dealer.  The Prosecution alleged, and the applicant accepted, that he was, in fact, dealing in methylamphetamine.  In the five week period covered by the indictment there were 21 intercepted conversations involving the applicant.

In this period, quantities of material which were estimated to involve, at least, 20 grams of methylamphetamine and said to be worth in excess of $60,000, were traded. The applicant both purchased and sold the drug in multiple ounce lots. He was correctly identified as a wholesaler. Other persons identified as the participants in the same trafficking ring, had been dealt with at earlier dates. The respective penalties imposed on these persons were referred to by Wilson J, in her sentencing of a co-offender Khor Tran Ly, (No. 2 of 2006). He was the person with whom the applicant dealt. He was described as being at mid level…