R v Briggs - [2012] QCA 291

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291

PARTIES:

R
v
BRIGGS, James Daniel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 139 of 2012
SC No 24 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a 38 week period – where he had 15 clients made up of his friends and associates – where he was 43 years old at the time of offending with an extensive and varied criminal and traffic history – where the trafficking was to subsidise his business and support his own drug use and not exclusively for commercial gain – where he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a fixed parole eligibility date after serving one-third of the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Coleman[2006] QCA 442, cited
R v Ikin [2007] QCA 224, cited
R v Johnson [2007] QCA 433, cited
R v Rickert, unreported, North J, Supreme Court of Queensland, 17 July 2012, distinguished
R v Twaddle [2002] QCA 188, cited
R v Ungvari [2010] QCA 134, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, James Briggs, pleaded guilty on 19 March 2012 to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine between 31 January and 23 October 2008 at Mackay. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with his parole eligibility date fixed at 19 November 2014, that is, after serving one-third of his sentence. He has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence contending that it is manifestly excessive.

He was 43 at the time of the offending and 47 at sentence. He has an extensive and infinitely varied criminal history commencing in 1984 when he was fined for stealing. It includes numerous convictions for dishonesty. In 1987, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and three years probation for three charges of break, enter and steal; stealing, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and receiving. He was first convicted of drug related offences in 1993. In 1999 he was fined for possessing dangerous drugs and utensils or pipes used in connection with dangerous drugs. He had two further drug related convictions in 2000. More significantly, in 2001 he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after six months with a two year operational period for two counts of…

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 Briggs

Details

AGLC: R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291
Case: [2012] QCA 291
Decision Date: 26 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Briggs, appealed against his sentence for trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a 38-week period. Briggs had 15 clients, who were his friends and associates, and the trafficking was intended to subsidise his business and support his own drug use rather than solely for commercial gain. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence of eight years imprisonment with a fixed parole eligibility date after serving one-third of the sentence was manifestly excessive. Briggs argued that the sentence did not account for the personal nature of his drug dealing, and that it was excessively harsh given his personal circumstances.

The court considered the totality of Briggs's criminal history, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for general deterrence. It was noted that while the trafficking was not exclusively for commercial gain, it was still a significant criminal activity that had an impact on the community. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as it reflected the seriousness of the offence and took into account the mitigating factors. The court was also mindful of the need for general deterrence given the harmful effects of drug trafficking.

In conclusion, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and did not represent a manifest excess. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, confirming that it was within the appropriate range for the offence committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Briggs [2012] QCA 291
PARTIES:	R v BRIGGS, James Daniel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 139 of 2012 SC No 24 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	26 October 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a 38 week period – where he had 15 clients made up of his friends and associates – where he was 43 years old at the time of offending with an extensive and varied criminal and traffic history – where the trafficking was to subsidise his business and support his own drug use and not exclusively for commercial gain – where he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a fixed parole eligibility date after serving one-third of the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Coleman[2006] QCA 442, cited R v Ikin [2007] QCA 224, cited R v Johnson [2007] QCA 433, cited R v Rickert, unreported, North J, Supreme Court of Queensland, 17 July 2012, distinguished R v Twaddle [2002] QCA 188, cited R v Ungvari [2010] QCA 134, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D R Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent