R v Baradel

Case [2016] QCA 114

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114

PARTIES:

R
v
BARADEL, Michael Sergio
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 129 of 2015
SC No 606 of 2014
SC No 93 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 22 May 2015

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 December 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Jackson and Bond JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDERS:

Refuse the application for leave to appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to four drug offences: trafficking in methylamphetamine, two counts of producing methlyamphetamine and possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to five years and six months imprisonment for the trafficking offence and concurrent terms of imprisonment of three years for one count of producing methylamphetamine and 12 months imprisonment for each of the other two offences – where the applicant was 22 years old when he offended and 24 years old when he was sentenced – where the applicant profited from his conduct – where the applicant had only a minor criminal history – where the applicant had ceased using drugs following his arrest – where the trafficking and production operations were ‘not insignificant’ – whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the appropriate starting point for a head sentence was six years – whether the sentencing judge considered all relevant mitigating factors – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – FRESH EVIDENCE AND EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER SENTENCING – where the applicant applied for leave to adduce an affidavit which exhibited copies of his co-offender’s criminal history and traffic record – where these documents demonstrated that the co-offender had an extensive criminal history, including for drug offending – where the applicant argued that the evidence explained how the youthful applicant had become involved in the very serious drug offending of which he was convicted – where the applicant argued this demonstrated that the applicant had been ‘influenced’ by the co-offender – where the applicant argued that if the sentencing judge had been aware of this history the non-parole period would have been reduced – where the affidavit was not fresh evidence – whether the Court ought receive the affidavit

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Church [2015] QCA 24, considered
R v Gaerlan [2014] QCA 145, cited
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
R v McAway (2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401, considered
R v Mikula[2015]…

Continue reading R v Baradel

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114
Case
[2016] QCA 114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to four drug offences, including trafficking in methylamphetamine, producing methylamphetamine, and possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to a total of five years and six months imprisonment, with concurrent terms for the other offences. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, and sought to adduce an affidavit from his co-offender to explain how he became involved in the offending. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge should have considered this evidence, and that it would have resulted in a reduced non-parole period.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the starting point for the head sentence at six years, and whether the judge had considered all relevant mitigating factors. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the appellant was entitled to adduce the affidavit as part of his appeal. The court needed to consider whether the affidavit was fresh evidence, and whether it should be received in any event.

The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant mitigating factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the affidavit was not fresh evidence, and that it did not demonstrate that the appellant had been influenced by the co-offender to the extent that it would have affected the sentence. The court found that the appellant had not established any grounds for interference with the sentence, and refused the application for leave to appeal.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse the application for leave to appeal.

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.