R v Bost - [2014] QCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bost [2014] QCA 264

PARTIES:

R
v
BOST, Mathew Sam
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2013
SC No 351 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides 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 – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs and to possessing a dangerous drug – where the applicant received a head sentence of nine years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration – where the applicant argued the declaration was not justified in all the circumstances, including that he did not use violence or weapons, and other matters – whether the sentencing judge erred in making a serious violent offender declaration

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant received a sentence of nine years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration after pleading guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the trafficking occurred on a large scale and the applicant was the head of a syndicate – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464; [2013] QCA 51, distinguished
R v George [2001] QCA 135, considered
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, considered
R v Saunders[2007] QCA 93, considered
R v Westphal[2009] QCA 223, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: On 26 November 2012 the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs between 1 June 2008 and 10 February 2011 (Count 1) and possessing a dangerous drug on 9 February 2011 (Count 2). On 27 August 2013 he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment upon Count 1 and it was declared that the conviction was for a serious violent offence. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of two years imprisonment on Count 2. The sentencing judge declared that 926 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 14 February 2011 and 27 August 2013 be deemed time already served under the sentence.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against the sentence. The grounds of his application focus upon the declaration that count 1 was a serious violent offence. The grounds are as follows:

“1.The sentence is manifestly excessive because of the declaration…

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 Bost

Details

AGLC: R v Bost [2014] QCA 264
Case: [2014] QCA 264
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bost, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs and to possessing a dangerous drug, appealed against his sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in making a serious violent offender declaration, given that the applicant did not use violence or weapons during the commission of the offence. The court was also required to determine whether the nine-year imprisonment sentence, with the accompanying declaration, was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court examined the circumstances of the offence, which involved large-scale drug trafficking and the applicant's role as the head of a syndicate. The court considered the severity and scale of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the principles of sentencing proportionality and retribution. The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in making the serious violent offender declaration, as the offence's nature and the applicant's role justified such a declaration. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the application. The reasoning provided by the court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the applicant's leadership role in the syndicate, which justified both the serious violent offender declaration and the length of the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed.

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 Bost [2014] QCA 264
PARTIES:	R v BOST, Mathew Sam (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 244 of 2013 SC No 351 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 June 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides 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 – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs and to possessing a dangerous drug – where the applicant received a head sentence of nine years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration – where the applicant argued the declaration was not justified in all the circumstances, including that he did not use violence or weapons, and other matters – whether the sentencing judge erred in making a serious violent offender declaration CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant received a sentence of nine years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration after pleading guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the trafficking occurred on a large scale and the applicant was the head of a syndicate – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464; [2013] QCA 51, distinguished R v George [2001] QCA 135, considered R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, considered R v Saunders[2007] QCA 93, considered R v Westphal[2009] QCA 223, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent