R v Bagnall - [2005] QCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bagnall [2005] QCA 20

PARTIES:

R
v
BAGNALL, Craig Matthew
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 10 of 2005
SC No 816 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

11 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where the applicant was convicted on four counts of drug trafficking and unlawful possession – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after nine months with an operational period of five years – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

J D Griffiths for the applicant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecution (Queensland) for the respondent

CHESTERMAN J: On 6 December last year the applicant pleaded guilty before Justice Holmes to an ex officio indictment charging him with:

1. Trafficking in MDMA and methylamphetamine between 1 June 2004 and 9 July 2004 at Alexandra Headland

2. Unlawfully possessing cannabis sativa on 8 July 2004 at Alexandra Headland

3. Unlawfully possessing methylamphetamine at the same date and the same place

and

4. Unlawfully possessing two mobiles telephones, two spoons and one set of electronic scales used in connection with the commission of the offence in count 1.

The applicant was arrested during the course of a police investigation involving covert officers into the sale of drugs on the Sunshine Coast. The applicant was one of a group of people suspected of involvement in drug trafficking.

The suspicion was confirmed when the applicant sold MDMA tablets and methylamphetamine to a covert police officer. There were five sales in the 39 day period described in
count 1. On only one of those occasions was methylamphetamine sold. On all five occasions ecstasy tablets were sold.

There was a sixth occasion when ecstasy was supplied. On this occasion only two tablets were handed over. They were intended to be part of a preceding transaction in which the applicant made short delivery. He made up for it by later supplying the additional two tablets.

Altogether the applicant supplied the covert police officer with 261 ecstasy tablets. The gross weight of the tablets was 56.809 grams. The weight of pure MDMA was 20.921 grams. On the one occasion when methylamphetamine was sold the applicant supplied 2.833 grams of powder. The weight of the pure drug was 1.382 grams.

The applicant was paid a total of $8,780 for the five transactions. Of that sum $540 was attributable to the sale of the methylamphetamine. This occurred on the occasion of the fourth sale.

It appears from conversations between the…

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 Bagnall

Details

AGLC: R v Bagnall [2005] QCA 20
Case: [2005] QCA 20
Decision Date: 11 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Bagnall involved a defendant convicted on four counts of drug trafficking and unlawful possession. The applicant, the defendant, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, which was suspended after nine months, and an operational period of five years. The applicant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether it failed to take into account all relevant factors. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because it was higher than sentences imposed in similar cases and that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors, including the applicant's age, background, and the fact that this was his first offence. The applicant also argued that the sentence failed to take into account the principle of proportionality, as the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the trial judge had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's age, background, and the fact that this was his first offence. The court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion properly. The court further held that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Bagnall [2005] QCA 20
PARTIES:	R v BAGNALL, Craig Matthew (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 10 of 2005 SC No 816 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	11 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where the applicant was convicted on four counts of drug trafficking and unlawful possession – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after nine months with an operational period of five years – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	J D Griffiths for the applicant M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecution (Queensland) for the respondent