R v Bonham; Ex parte - [2014] QCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bonham; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2014] QCA 140

PARTIES:

R
v
BONHAM, George
(respondent)
EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 79 of 2014
SC No 38 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

13 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Philippides and Dalton JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of recklessly importing marketable quantities of border controlled drugs and one count of importing border controlled drugs – where the respondent was sentenced to an effective term of four years imprisonment to be released on parole after serving six months – where the respondent was engaged in the lawful business of importing substances to assist him in making a lawful cannabis-like substance – where the respondent's customers asked him if he could lawfully supply "party pills" – where the respondent adopted amateurish means to research the drug's legality and made enquiries which were not particularly broad or diligent – where the respondent threw the imported drugs away as soon as he realised they were illegal – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2), s 19AB(1)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.2(1), s 307.3(1)

Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143; [2008] HCA 15, cited
Alavy v The Queen [2014] VSCA 25, considered
Chong v R [2011] NSWCCA 182, cited
DPP v Coory (2011) 214 A Crim R 301; [2011] VSCA 316; considered
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Calis, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Mullins J, 7 November 2012, considered
R v Calis[2013] QCA 165, considered
R v Carter and Sullivan unreported, Northern Territory Supreme Court, Martin CJ, 21 August 2009, considered
R v Labanon; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions[2006] QCA 529, considered
R v Massey, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Jackson J, 28 June 2013, considered
R v McBride (2003) 143 A Crim R 246; [2003] NSWCCA 282, cited
R v Sutton[2013] QCA 151, considered
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL: M J Copley QC, with G P Lynham, for the appellant
J M Sharp for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) for the appellant
Brisbane Criminal Lawyers for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The respondent was charged with four counts of importing marketable quantities of border controlled drugs under s 307.2(1) Criminal Code (Cth) (counts 1, 3, 4…

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 Bonham; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Bonham; Ex parte [2014] QCA 140
Case: [2014] QCA 140
Decision Date: 13 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an appeal against the sentence of the respondent who pleaded guilty to drug importation charges. The respondent had imported a quantity of border controlled drugs, which he intended to use in making a lawful cannabis-like substance for his customers. Despite engaging in the lawful business of importing substances, the respondent did not undertake sufficient research to ascertain the legality of the drugs he imported, and he discarded the drugs upon realising their illegality. The respondent was sentenced to an effective term of four years imprisonment, with release on parole after serving six months. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the respondent's actions and the nature of the offence. The court noted that the respondent's actions were reckless and that he had not conducted a thorough investigation into the legality of the drugs he imported. However, the court also considered that the respondent had discarded the drugs upon realising their illegality and that he had not profited from the importation. The court held that while the sentence was on the lower end of the scale, it was not so manifestly inadequate as to justify interference.

The appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The court found that the sentence, while on the lower end of the scale, was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. The respondent's actions were reckless, but the court considered the fact that he had discarded the drugs upon realising their illegality and had not profited from the importation. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Bonham; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2014] QCA 140
PARTIES:	R v BONHAM, George (respondent) EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 79 of 2014 SC No 38 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	13 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Philippides and Dalton JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of recklessly importing marketable quantities of border controlled drugs and one count of importing border controlled drugs – where the respondent was sentenced to an effective term of four years imprisonment to be released on parole after serving six months – where the respondent was engaged in the lawful business of importing substances to assist him in making a lawful cannabis-like substance – where the respondent's customers asked him if he could lawfully supply "party pills" – where the respondent adopted amateurish means to research the drug's legality and made enquiries which were not particularly broad or diligent – where the respondent threw the imported drugs away as soon as he realised they were illegal – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2), s 19AB(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.2(1), s 307.3(1) Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143; [2008] HCA 15, cited Alavy v The Queen [2014] VSCA 25, considered Chong v R [2011] NSWCCA 182, cited DPP v Coory (2011) 214 A Crim R 301; [2011] VSCA 316; considered Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited R v Calis, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Mullins J, 7 November 2012, considered R v Calis[2013] QCA 165, considered R v Carter and Sullivan unreported, Northern Territory Supreme Court, Martin CJ, 21 August 2009, considered R v Labanon; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions[2006] QCA 529, considered R v Massey, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Jackson J, 28 June 2013, considered R v McBride (2003) 143 A Crim R 246; [2003] NSWCCA 282, cited R v Sutton[2013] QCA 151, considered Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC, with G P Lynham, for the appellant J M Sharp for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) for the appellant Brisbane Criminal Lawyers for the respondent