R v Brown - [2004] QCA 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2004] QCA 229

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Sonja
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 72 of 2004
SC No 51 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 July 2004

JUDGES:

Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - where applicant convicted on own plea of guilty to trafficking in cannabis sativa - where sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a recommendation for post prison community based release after serving three years - where trafficking at substantial level - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether sufficient account taken of applicant’s guilty plea and personal circumstances

R v D’Ortona [1997] QCA 088; CA No 1 of 1997, 2 April 1997, considered
R v Parsons and Sanders [1999] QCA 402; CA No 110 of 1999, CA No 129 of 1999, 24 September 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

S P Cousins for the applicant
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jason Buckland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and with the order he proposes.

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and there is nothing I wish to add thereto. The application should be dismissed.

JERRARD JA: On 1 March 2003 Mrs Sonja Brown pleaded guilty to one count of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis sativa, one count of unlawful possession of that drug, and one count of having in her possession a variety of nominated items used, or for use, in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking. She was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and the learned sentencing judge recommended that she be eligible for consideration for release on parole after she had served three years of that sentence. She has applied for leave to appeal against the severity of those orders.

The period of trafficking admitted by her plea was from 22 November 2000 to 24 January 2002. The information put before the court by the prosecution was that she and her husband had carried on that business together and were “equals in the sense that they are a married couple, equally willing participants in this venture and that there was no suggestion of duress or intimidation or overbearing or importuning of her to get involved in this enterprise and that is apparent by the fact she continues it for three months after he’s in gaol.”[1] The reference to that three months continuation is explained by the fact that Mr Brown was arrested and placed…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2004] QCA 229
Case: [2004] QCA 229
Decision Date: 9 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brown involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in cannabis sativa. The nature of the dispute was the applicant's contention that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and did not sufficiently account for his guilty plea or personal circumstances. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence adequately took into account the applicant's guilty plea and personal circumstances. The court was required to consider these issues in light of previous cases such as R v D’Ortona and R v Parsons and Sanders, which provide guidance on the principles of sentencing.

The court thoroughly examined the circumstances of the offence, noting that the trafficking was at a substantial level. It considered the appropriate weight to be given to the applicant's guilty plea and personal circumstances, ultimately determining that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and took into account the mitigating factors presented. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Brown [2004] QCA 229
PARTIES:	R v BROWN, Sonja (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 72 of 2004 SC No 51 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 July 2004
JUDGES:	Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - where applicant convicted on own plea of guilty to trafficking in cannabis sativa - where sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a recommendation for post prison community based release after serving three years - where trafficking at substantial level - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether sufficient account taken of applicant’s guilty plea and personal circumstances R v D’Ortona [1997] QCA 088; CA No 1 of 1997, 2 April 1997, considered R v Parsons and Sanders [1999] QCA 402; CA No 110 of 1999, CA No 129 of 1999, 24 September 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	S P Cousins for the applicant S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jason Buckland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent