R v Bull - [2017] QCA 293

[2017] QCA 293

COURT OF APPEAL

GOTTERSON JA
MORRISON JA
HENRY J

CA No 153 of 2017
SC No 6 of 2017

THE QUEEN

BULL, Bradley Joseph Applicant

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2017

JUDGMENT

MORRISON JA: Mr Bull pleaded guilty to seven counts of drug related offences, the most serious of which was trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis between 15 December 2014 and 17 December 2015. In addition, there were five counts of supplying methylamphetamine and one count of possession of various implements (an Apple iPad and two sets of scales) used in connection with the trafficking. On 16 June 2017, Mr Bull was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on the trafficking count with a parole eligibility date fixed after serving 18 months, namely, 16 December 2018. On all other counts, he was convicted and not further punished.

Mr Bull seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive; however, that argument is confined to the imposition of the parole eligibility date only, Mr Bull accepting that the imposition of five years’ imprisonment was within range. It is contended that the term of imprisonment should be suspended after serving 12 months in recognition of his substantial cooperation with the authorities and the administration of justice and his demonstrated rehabilitation. An agreed schedule of facts was tendered at the sentencing hearing. It revealed that on 16 December 2015, police searched Mr Bull’s premises, during which he made comments to the effect that he knew the police were coming to conduct the raid and that they were “two days late, and there is nothing here”.

He told police that there were items of interest in a breadbin. A search of the bin revealed:

(i)three notebooks containing “tick” sheets;
(ii)over 300 clip sealed bags;
(iii)two glass pipes;
(iv)four brass pipes;
(v)two sets of digital scales (one containing traces of methylamphetamine and cannabis, and the other containing traces of methylamphetamine only); and
(vi)one inoperable mobile phone.

Police also located a cannabis plant and an Apple iPad. Mr Bull did not have an operable mobile telephone, and the evidence of his trafficking comes from messages on his iPad from two days prior to the search. It also stems from the analysis of a mobile telephone in the name of Mr Bull’s associate, one Hubble, the tick sheets, scales and clipseal bags. The texts located on Hubble’s mobile telephone showed drug activity since July 2015. Mr Bull admitted to police that he started the tick sheets “a year ago – a year or two”. The Crown proceeded on the basis that the trafficking was for at least one year prior to the search, beginning nominally on 15 December 2014.

The tick sheets identified that Mr Bull had at least 26 customers. He was owed at least $47,710. The tick sheets recorded drug supplies on credit to a total of 23 people for sums varying between $600 and $11,400. Certain entries listed the price and quantities of drugs supplied: points…

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 Bull

Details

AGLC: R v Bull [2017] QCA 293
Case: [2017] QCA 293
Decision Date: 29 NOVEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an application by Bradley Joseph Bull for leave to appeal against his sentence for drug trafficking and related offences. Mr Bull was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the trafficking count, with parole eligibility set after 18 months. The appeal focused solely on the parole eligibility date, which Mr Bull argued was manifestly excessive. The primary issues before the court were whether the parole eligibility date was properly determined and whether it constituted a manifest excess of the sentencing discretion.

The court considered the evidence of Mr Bull's extensive involvement in drug trafficking over a 12-month period, his lack of cooperation during the police investigation, and his history of drug use and criminal activity, including offences committed while on parole. The court also examined the evidence of Mr Bull's efforts towards rehabilitation, including his relocation, engagement with community services, and cessation of drug use, though it noted the absence of empirical evidence to support the latter claim. The court recognised the Crown's submission that Mr Bull's cooperation with authorities, though commendable, did not warrant special leniency.

The court concluded that the parole eligibility date of 18 months was within the appropriate sentencing range and not manifestly excessive. It compared Mr Bull's case with precedents where similar sentences were upheld, emphasising the importance of considering the whole sentence and the broad discretion available to sentencing judges. The court also highlighted the need for general deterrence in drug trafficking cases, underscoring the seriousness of the offending.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The order of the Court was that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders