R v Beakey - [2014] QCA 251

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Beakey [2014] QCA 251

PARTIES:

R
v
BEAKEY, Sean Jeffrey
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 146 of 2014
DC No 489 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 September 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1. Application to amend the application for leave to appeal against sentence to include grounds (b) and (c) set out in paragraph 2 of the applicant’s submissions filed on 29 August 2014 granted.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis sativa – where the target of a police operation was conducting a trafficking business and used the applicant to obtain from a source three large supplies of cannabis sativa for a total value of $116,000 – where the applicant was not selling the drug but made arrangements with the target and the source for the payment, collection and delivery of the cannabis sativa on three occasions – where the applicant made two submissions relevant to the applicant’s culpability which departed from the prosecution’s schedule of facts – where the sentencing judge indicated difficulty in accepting the submissions – where the sentencing judge adjourned to consider the submissions in relation to the schedule of facts – where the sentencing judge rejected the applicant’s submissions and imposed the sentence – whether procedural fairness was afforded to the applicant in respect of the rejection of the applicant’s submissions

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years to be suspended after serving a period of 12 months with an operational period of four years – where the applicant was not a mere courier and had some knowledge of the trafficking business of the target – where there was no error of principle in requiring the applicant to serve an actual custodial component of 12 months

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

R v Broad & Prior[2010] QCA 53, considered

COUNSEL:

S R Lewis for the applicant (pro bono)
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Mullins J and the orders she proposes.

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Mullins J and agree with those reasons and the orders her Honour proposes.

MULLINS J: In May 2014 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis sativa. The trafficking period was between 24…

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 Beakey

Details

AGLC: R v Beakey [2014] QCA 251
Case: [2014] QCA 251
Decision Date: 7 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Beakey, the Court was asked to consider an appeal against sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, cannabis sativa. The central issue in this case was whether the sentencing judge provided procedural fairness when rejecting the applicant's submissions regarding his culpability. The applicant contended that he was not a mere courier but rather someone who made arrangements for the payment, collection, and delivery of the drugs. However, the sentencing judge had difficulty accepting these submissions and ultimately rejected them, imposing a sentence of imprisonment for four years, suspended after 12 months of actual custody.

The legal issues revolved around whether the applicant's submissions were adequately considered and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, given that he was not a central figure in the trafficking operation. The Court had to determine if there was any error in principle or if the sentence imposed was within the bounds of fairness and proportionality.

The Court found that the sentencing judge did consider the applicant's submissions, albeit with some reservations, and found them unconvincing. The Court held that there was no error of principle in requiring the applicant to serve an actual custodial component of 12 months. The sentence was deemed to be within the range of what could be considered appropriate for the offence and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to amend the application for leave to appeal against sentence to include grounds (b) and (c) set out in paragraph 2 of the applicant’s submissions filed on 29 August 2014 granted.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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 Beakey [2014] QCA 251
PARTIES:	R v BEAKEY, Sean Jeffrey (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 146 of 2014 DC No 489 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 September 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Morrison JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application to amend the application for leave to appeal against sentence to include grounds (b) and (c) set out in paragraph 2 of the applicant’s submissions filed on 29 August 2014 granted. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis sativa – where the target of a police operation was conducting a trafficking business and used the applicant to obtain from a source three large supplies of cannabis sativa for a total value of $116,000 – where the applicant was not selling the drug but made arrangements with the target and the source for the payment, collection and delivery of the cannabis sativa on three occasions – where the applicant made two submissions relevant to the applicant’s culpability which departed from the prosecution’s schedule of facts – where the sentencing judge indicated difficulty in accepting the submissions – where the sentencing judge adjourned to consider the submissions in relation to the schedule of facts – where the sentencing judge rejected the applicant’s submissions and imposed the sentence – whether procedural fairness was afforded to the applicant in respect of the rejection of the applicant’s submissions CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years to be suspended after serving a period of 12 months with an operational period of four years – where the applicant was not a mere courier and had some knowledge of the trafficking business of the target – where there was no error of principle in requiring the applicant to serve an actual custodial component of 12 months Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C R v Broad & Prior[2010] QCA 53, considered
COUNSEL:	S R Lewis for the applicant (pro bono) B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent