R v Barton

Case [2006] QCA 367


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Barton [2006] QCA 367

PARTIES:

R
v
BARTON, Kellie Marie

(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 25 of 2006
SC No 473 of 2005
SC No 855 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 August 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Jerrard JA concurring as to the orders made, Mullins J dissenting

ORDER:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence
      granted
2.    Appeal allowed to the limited extent of recommending       that the applicant be eligible for parole after serving       18 months imprisonment instead of two years and       three months

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 GRANTED - GENERALLY - where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking and supplying a dangerous drug and possessing things used in connection with producing dangerous drugs - where applicant's effective total sentence was seven years imprisonment with eligibility for parole after two years and three months - where applicant was previously drug-addicted but reports and references indicate that her efforts at rehabilitation have been successful - whether recommendation for parole eligibility after two years and three months adequately reflected many of the significant mitigating features of this case - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - FRESH EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where this Court was asked to consider new evidence in the form of a psychiatric report attesting to the extent of the applicant's drug addiction - whether this report should be admitted on appeal to avoid a miscarriage of justice

R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, applied

R v Postic [2004] QCA 301; CA No 151 of 2004, 19 August 2004, distinguished

Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for applicant/appellant
R G Martin SC for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O'Gorman for applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  The applicant, Kellie Marie Barton, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 6 January 2006 to an indictment containing one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine (count 1), seven counts of supplying methylamphetamine (counts 2 to 8) and one count of possession of pseudoephedrine for use in connection with the commission of the crime of producing dangerous drugs (count 9).  She also pleaded guilty to three summary offences.  She was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for the trafficking (count 1) and to no further punishment for the counts of supply (counts 2 - 8), which were particulars of the offence of trafficking.  She was sentenced to a concurrent term…

Continue reading R v Barton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Barton [2006] QCA 367
Case
[2006] QCA 367
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Barton involved an appeal against sentence by the convicted individual, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking and supplying a dangerous drug, as well as possessing things used in connection with producing dangerous drugs. The court was tasked with considering whether the sentence, which amounted to seven years imprisonment with eligibility for parole after two years and three months, was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The applicant, who was previously addicted to drugs, had made significant efforts towards rehabilitation, which were noted in various reports and references. The court was asked to consider whether the recommendation for parole eligibility adequately reflected the mitigating features of the case, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the recommendation for parole eligibility adequately reflected the mitigating features of the case, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Additionally, the court was asked to consider new evidence in the form of a psychiatric report attesting to the extent of the applicant's drug addiction, to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to balance the principles of finality of sentencing with the need to ensure that justice is served in individual cases.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of finality of sentencing, as well as the need to ensure that justice is served in individual cases. The court found that the recommendation for parole eligibility did not adequately reflect the significant mitigating features of the case, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court also found that the new evidence in the form of the psychiatric report should be admitted on appeal to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The court ultimately allowed the appeal to the limited extent of recommending that the applicant be eligible for parole after serving 18 months imprisonment instead of two years and three months.

The orders of the court were to grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence, and to allow the appeal to the limited extent of recommending that the applicant be eligible for parole after serving 18 months imprisonment instead of two years and three months. The court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, and that the recommendation for parole eligibility did not adequately reflect the significant mitigating features of the case. The court also found that the new evidence in the form of the psychiatric report should be admitted on appeal to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence

granted

2. Appeal allowed to the limited extent of recommending that the applicant be eligible for parole after serving 18 months imprisonment instead of two years and three months

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.