R v Brunelle

[2010] QCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brunelle [2010] QCA 140

PARTIES:

R
v
BRUNELLE, Richard Allen
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 58 of 2010
SC No 30 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.1.     

Appeal allowed and the sentence is set aside.2.     

In lieu, the applicant is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended after serving a period of three months’ imprisonment, and the applicant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of three years to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.3.     

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of supplying the dangerous drug cannabis sativa and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment suspended after nine months – where applicant entered an early plea of guilty and had no prior criminal history – where applicant provided substantial cooperation with police – where applicant’s admissions disclosed the offence and the extent of his offending – where applicant provided statements about two alleged murders – where no cannabis sativa was supplied and no drugs were distributed as a result of the applicant’s offending – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Boyle [1995] QCA 396, considered
R v Brienza [2010] QCA 15, considered
R v Broad & Prior [2010] QCA 53, considered
R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216, considered
R v Davidson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 283, considered
R v Hannigan [2009] 2 Qd R 331; [2009] QCA 40, considered
R v Murray [2006] QCA 154, considered
York v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 466; [2005] HCA 60, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and Mullins J and with the orders proposed.

1. MUIR JA:   I agree with the reasons of Mullins J and with the orders she proposes.  I agree in particular that counsel’s emphasis on the hearing on the mitigating effect of the applicant's co-operation with authorities in relation to the murders distracted attention from his free and full confession and its mitigating effect.  It may be that some evidence of the fictitious drug transaction and of the appellant's role in it may have come to light, but proof of his offending was likely to be difficult.  The applicant could have attempted to minimise the scale of the fictitious dealing and…