R v Beasley - [2013] QCA 322

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Beasley [2013] QCA 322

PARTIES:

R
v
BEASLEY, Paul Matthew

FILE NO/S:

CA No 174 of 2013
SC No 600 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2013

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Fraser JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

APPLICATION REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine, the quantity of which exceeded two grams (count 1) and possession of things in connection with possessing a dangerous drug (count 2) – where the applicant committed the offences whilst on bail – where the applicant was serving a sentence of three years imprisonment with a parole release date after 12 months at the time of sentence – where the applicant was sentenced on count 1 to two years imprisonment cumulatively on the term currently being served and a concurrent term of seven months imprisonment on count 2 – where the applicant had a significant and relevant criminal history – where the sentencing judge accepted a submission that the applicant’s possession should be viewed as having a commercial element – where the applicant argued that he should not have been sentenced on the basis that he knowingly possessed the drug – where the applicant contended the sentence offended the totality principle – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 9(b), s 129(1)(c)

Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited
R v Chinmaya [2009] QCA 227, cited
R v Cone [2010] QCA 274, cited
R v Duggan [2004] QCA 442, cited
R v Fabre [2008] QCA 386, cited
R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292, cited
R v Nguyen and Truong [1995] 2 Qd R 285; [1994] QCA 389, cited
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517, cited
R v Warren[2011] QCA 89, cited

COUNSEL:

P Nolan for the applicant (pro bono)
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

AW Bale and Son for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Fraser JA. I agree that the application should be refused for those reasons.

FRASER JA: After a two day trial the applicant was found guilty of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, the quantity of which exceeded two grams (count 1) and possession of various paraphernalia in connection with the commission of possessing a dangerous drug (count 2). The applicant was sentenced for those offences on 13 June 2013.…

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 Beasley

Details

AGLC: R v Beasley [2013] QCA 322
Case: [2013] QCA 322
Decision Date: 29 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine, the quantity of which exceeded two grams, and possession of things in connection with possessing a dangerous drug. He appealed against the sentence imposed by the court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, and any other relevant factors.

The court considered the applicant’s significant criminal history, his possession of the drug while on bail, and the commercial element of the possession as accepted by the sentencing judge. The court noted that the applicant had been serving a sentence of three years imprisonment at the time of sentencing, with a parole release date after 12 months. The applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment cumulatively on the term currently being served and a concurrent term of seven months imprisonment on the second count. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, as it took into account the totality of the circumstances and the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar criminal activity.

The court refused the application for a new trial or appeal against sentence. The sentence imposed was considered appropriate and just, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the character of the offender. The court held that there was no error in the sentencing process that would warrant a new trial or appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

APPLICATION 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 Beasley [2013] QCA 322
PARTIES:	R v BEASLEY, Paul Matthew
FILE NO/S:	CA No 174 of 2013 SC No 600 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2013
JUDGES:	Chief Justice and Fraser JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	APPLICATION REFUSED.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine, the quantity of which exceeded two grams (count 1) and possession of things in connection with possessing a dangerous drug (count 2) – where the applicant committed the offences whilst on bail – where the applicant was serving a sentence of three years imprisonment with a parole release date after 12 months at the time of sentence – where the applicant was sentenced on count 1 to two years imprisonment cumulatively on the term currently being served and a concurrent term of seven months imprisonment on count 2 – where the applicant had a significant and relevant criminal history – where the sentencing judge accepted a submission that the applicant’s possession should be viewed as having a commercial element – where the applicant argued that he should not have been sentenced on the basis that he knowingly possessed the drug – where the applicant contended the sentence offended the totality principle – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 9(b), s 129(1)(c) Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited R v Chinmaya [2009] QCA 227, cited R v Cone [2010] QCA 274, cited R v Duggan [2004] QCA 442, cited R v Fabre [2008] QCA 386, cited R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292, cited R v Nguyen and Truong [1995] 2 Qd R 285; [1994] QCA 389, cited R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517, cited R v Warren[2011] QCA 89, cited
COUNSEL:	P Nolan for the applicant (pro bono) S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	AW Bale and Son for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent