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 2005DIVISION:
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 dissentingORDER:
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 monthsCATCHWORDS:
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
COUNSEL:
A J Glynn SC for applicant/appellant
R G Martin SC for respondentSOLICITORS:
Robertson O'Gorman for applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent
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
- AGLC
- R v Barton [2006] QCA 367
- Case
- [2006] QCA 367
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.