R v BCV

[2014] QCA 361

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BCV [2014] QCA 361

PARTIES:

R
v
BCV
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 29 of 2014
SC No 463 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2014

JUDGES:

Muir JA and Philip McMurdo and Peter Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.1.   

Appeal allowed.2.   

For the term of imprisonment imposed for the trafficking offence, a term of imprisonment of six years is substituted.3.   

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine and some other drug offences – where the sentence imposed on the applicant for the trafficking offence was determined by a comparison of the applicant's criminality with that of another applicant involved in the same offending – where the other applicant has successfully appealed against the sentence imposed for the trafficking offence – whether the sentence imposed in this case should also be reduced

COUNSEL:

P Nolan for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hannay Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. MUIR JA:  I agree with Peter Lyons J.

1. PHILIP McMURDO J:  I agree with Peter Lyons J.

1. PETER LYONS J:  This applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of trafficking in cocaine and some other drug offences.  The sentence imposed on this applicant for the trafficking offence was determined by a comparison of the applicant's criminality, with that of another applicant involved in the same offending.  The other applicant has successfully appealed against the sentence imposed for the trafficking offence.  There is no reason to take a different view on appeal about the relative significance of the criminality of each applicant.

1. It follows that this applicant's application should also succeed.  On that basis, I would order the sentence of imprisonment for the trafficking offence be reduced to one of six years, without any order relating to the applicant's parole eligibility date.  No question arises in relation to the sentences on the other counts.

1. Accordingly I would make the following orders:-

(a)        The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted;

(b)        The applicant's appeal against sentence for the trafficking offence is allowed;

(c)        For the term of imprisonment imposed on this applicant for the trafficking offence, a term of imprisonment of six years is substituted.