R v Best - [2000] QCA 126

[2000] QCA 126
COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
DAVIES JA
HELMAN J

[R v Best]

CA No 408 of 1999

THE QUEEN

GRAHAM DOUGLAS BEST Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/04/2000

JUDGMENT

HELMAN J: On 4 November last year, the applicant came before the Supreme Court in Brisbane charged with six offences against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986: one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, two counts of unlawfully supplying heroin, one count of unlawfully possessing heroin with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of unlawfully possessing the dangerous drug cannabis sativa, and one count of unlawfully possessing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine. To each count the applicant pleaded guilty.

For trafficking his Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for eight years and recommended that he be considered for parole after serving three years. For unlawfully supplying heroin and unlawfully possessing it, his Honour noted the applicant's pleas of guilty but, mindful of the principle explained by the High Court in Pearce v. The Queen [1998] 194 C.L.R. 610, he imposed no additional penalty. For each of the two other offences, concurrent sentences of imprisonment for one month were imposed.

The applicant's trafficking came to light after a police investigation which began in June 1998. Video surveillance in the Brunswick Street Mall and approaches to the applicant by an undercover police officer confirmed information that the applicant was trafficking in heroin there. The charges of unlawfully supplying and unlawfully possessing heroin arose from the undercover police officer's dealings with the applicant.

Further evidence came from an interview of the applicant and from a search of his home. He is a computer expert. It was found that he kept records of his trafficking in a diary and on his computer. His possession of cannabis sativa and methylamphetamine was discovered on and following the search.

The applicant's complaint concerns the sentence of imprisonment for eight years which he asserts is manifestly excessive.

The applicant was born on 17 March 1950. He has what the Crown Prosecutor before his Honour referred to as a "minor" criminal history consisting of offences committed in this state and in New South Wales. There were no drug offences in Queensland and nothing is recorded in Queensland after 1969. At the time of the commission of the offences dealt with by his Honour, the applicant was addicted to heroin but when sentenced was no longer taking it and was on a methadone program. His Honour accepted that his trafficking was "addiction-driven".

The penalty his Honour imposed was a severe one and quite rightly so in view of the gravity of the offence. The applicant was not a naive and impressionable youth but a mature man described by members of his family as "very intelligent and focused" and "very clever and extremely knowledgable on a variety of subjects". He had been a university lecturer for ten years. He should have been well aware of the consequences of committing offences involving illicit drugs, having been dealt with for three such…

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 Best

Details

AGLC: R v Best [2000] QCA 126
Case: [2000] QCA 126
Decision Date: 11/04/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Graham Douglas Best, was convicted on six counts under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986. The offences included trafficking in heroin, unlawfully supplying heroin, and unlawfully possessing heroin, cannabis sativa, and methylamphetamine. The applicant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment for trafficking, with a recommendation for parole after three years. For the other offences, concurrent sentences of one month in prison were imposed. The applicant appealed against the severity of the sentence for trafficking.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed for trafficking in heroin was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence did not adequately consider his personal circumstances, including his cooperation with authorities, his timely plea of guilty, his addiction-driven behaviour, and his support system. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offence of trafficking in heroin. The court noted that the applicant was a mature individual with a significant business operation, and the sentence reflected the gravity of his involvement in heroin trafficking. The court also emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases involving substantial drug trafficking. While the sentence was at the higher end of the appropriate range, it was not considered manifestly excessive. The appeal against the sentence was therefore dismissed.

Orders