R v Bailey - [2014] QCA 316

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bailey [2014] QCA 316

PARTIES:

R
v
BAILEY, Ryan Keith
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 197 of 2014
DC No 35 of 2014
DC No 48 of 2014
DC No 59 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 October 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to offences listed on three separate indictments covering different periods of time – where the offences of the first indictment included trafficking in a schedule 2 dangerous drug, production of a dangerous drug, and possession of things associated with the production of methylamphetamine, namely a reaction vessel and condenser – where the offences of the second indictment included production of a dangerous drug and possession of things associated with that production, namely a reaction vessel and condensers – where the third indictment listed a range of summary matters including; two charges of possession of things used in the commission of the offences, three charges of breach of bail conditions, one charge of possession of property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing offences, four charges of forging and uttering, nine chargers of uttering, five charges of fraud, eight charges of possession of a dangerous drug, one charge of attempted fraud, one charge of using a thing to forge, two charges of possessing utensils for use in connection with smoking a dangerous drug, and one charge of failing to take reasonable care in respect to a syringe – where on the first indictment the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for trafficking, 12 months for the production of a dangerous drug, and six months for the charge of possessing things associated with that production; those sentences to be served concurrently – where on the second indictment the applicant was sentenced to nine months for the offence of producing a dangerous drug, and six months on the charge of possessing things associated with that production – where those two sentences were to be concurrent with each other, but served cumulatively with the sentences imposed on the first indictment – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the other sentences, for all of the summary offences on the third indictment – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where in written submissions the relevant grounds were that the applicant’s lack of criminal history had not been properly taken into account, that the quantities of the drugs were only miniscule, and that insufficient regard was had to the applicant’s rehabilitation and…

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 Bailey

Details

AGLC: R v Bailey [2014] QCA 316
Case: [2014] QCA 316
Decision Date: 2 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Bailey, appealed against the sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to multiple drug-related offences, as well as other charges. The offences were spread across three separate indictments. The first indictment involved trafficking in a schedule 2 dangerous drug, the production of a dangerous drug, and possession of equipment associated with the production of methylamphetamine. The second indictment involved similar offences of drug production and possession of associated equipment. The third indictment involved various summary matters, including possession of items used in the commission of offences, breach of bail conditions, possession of property suspected of being acquired for the purpose of committing offences, forging and uttering, fraud, possession of dangerous drugs, attempted fraud, using a thing to forge, possession of utensils for smoking a dangerous drug, and failing to take reasonable care in respect to a syringe. The sentences imposed were three years for trafficking, 12 months for production of a dangerous drug, and six months for possessing items associated with production, all to be served concurrently, as well as nine months for the production of a dangerous drug and six months for possessing items associated with production, to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively with the other sentences. Additionally, six months imprisonment was imposed for the summary offences, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. Bailey argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, submitting that his lack of criminal history, the small quantities of drugs, and insufficient regard for his rehabilitation and support in the community were not properly considered. He further argued that the court placed too much emphasis on the sophistication of the trafficking, did not sufficiently account for his early plea, the low level and short period of the trafficking, or the impact of family support on his rehabilitation prospects.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the arguments presented. The court examined whether the sentence was so high as to shock the conscience or whether it was palpably outside the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed. The court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, the need to protect the community, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The court found that the applicant's lack of criminal history, the small quantities of drugs, and the impact of family support on his rehabilitation prospects were all appropriately considered in the sentencing process. The court was satisfied that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed.

ORDERS:
Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

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 Bailey [2014] QCA 316
PARTIES:	R v BAILEY, Ryan Keith (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 197 of 2014 DC No 35 of 2014 DC No 48 of 2014 DC No 59 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	2 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 October 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to offences listed on three separate indictments covering different periods of time – where the offences of the first indictment included trafficking in a schedule 2 dangerous drug, production of a dangerous drug, and possession of things associated with the production of methylamphetamine, namely a reaction vessel and condenser – where the offences of the second indictment included production of a dangerous drug and possession of things associated with that production, namely a reaction vessel and condensers – where the third indictment listed a range of summary matters including; two charges of possession of things used in the commission of the offences, three charges of breach of bail conditions, one charge of possession of property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing offences, four charges of forging and uttering, nine chargers of uttering, five charges of fraud, eight charges of possession of a dangerous drug, one charge of attempted fraud, one charge of using a thing to forge, two charges of possessing utensils for use in connection with smoking a dangerous drug, and one charge of failing to take reasonable care in respect to a syringe – where on the first indictment the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for trafficking, 12 months for the production of a dangerous drug, and six months for the charge of possessing things associated with that production; those sentences to be served concurrently – where on the second indictment the applicant was sentenced to nine months for the offence of producing a dangerous drug, and six months on the charge of possessing things associated with that production – where those two sentences were to be concurrent with each other, but served cumulatively with the sentences imposed on the first indictment – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the other sentences, for all of the summary offences on the third indictment – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where in written submissions the relevant grounds were that the applicant’s lack of criminal history had not been properly taken into account, that the quantities of the drugs were only miniscule, and that insufficient regard was had to the applicant’s rehabilitation and…