R v Cameron - [2014] QCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cameron [2014] QCA 55

PARTIES:

R
v
CAMERON, Bradley James
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 230 of 2013
SC No 5 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs: cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), amphetamine, cannabis and growth hormone – where the trafficking period spanned four weeks – where the applicant was a high level wholesale trafficker – where the sentence imposed was eight and a half years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set at two years and 10 months – where the applicant contended that his mitigating factors should have attracted an earlier eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs: cocaine, 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), amphetamine, cannabis and growth hormone – where the sentencing judge reviewed the sentences of three other offenders involved in the cocaine trafficking enterprise – where the applicant’s substantial business was in trading methamphetamines – where the applicant and the three other offenders had varying levels of culpability and mitigating circumstances – whether the applicant’s sentence lacks parity with sentences imposed on other offenders

R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, considered
R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, considered
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale and Son for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully trafficking, between 11 November 2009 and 10 December 2009, in dangerous drugs – cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), amphetamine, cannabis and growth hormone – and was sentenced to eight and a half years of imprisonment. A parole eligibility date was set two years and 10 months into that sentence and a period of 56 days spent in pre-sentence custody was declared as imprisonment already served. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive and lacks parity with sentences imposed on other offenders engaged in the cocaine trafficking enterprise.

The trafficking offence

According to a statement of facts tendered on sentence, the applicant’s telephone calls were (lawfully) intercepted during the trafficking period. During that period, he supplied drugs, primarily amphetamines at $3,100…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2014] QCA 55
Case: [2014] QCA 55
Decision Date: 28 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Cameron, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, which convicted him of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, including cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamine, cannabis, and growth hormone. The trafficking occurred over a period of four weeks, and Cameron was identified as a high-level wholesale trafficker. The court sentenced him to eight and a half years' imprisonment with parole eligibility set at two years and 10 months. Cameron contended that his mitigating factors warranted an earlier parole eligibility date. Additionally, Cameron argued that his sentence lacked parity with sentences imposed on three other offenders involved in the same trafficking enterprise.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was a lack of parity between the sentences of Cameron and the co-offenders. In considering the appeal, the court had to weigh Cameron's mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also had to assess the proportionality of Cameron's sentence relative to the sentences of the other offenders, taking into account their respective levels of culpability and mitigating circumstances.

The court concluded that Cameron's sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. It found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court also determined that there was sufficient parity between the sentences of Cameron and the co-offenders, considering the varying levels of culpability and mitigating circumstances. The court held that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate under the circumstances.

The application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal 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 Cameron [2014] QCA 55
PARTIES:	R v CAMERON, Bradley James (applicant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 230 of 2013 SC No 5 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs: cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), amphetamine, cannabis and growth hormone – where the trafficking period spanned four weeks – where the applicant was a high level wholesale trafficker – where the sentence imposed was eight and a half years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set at two years and 10 months – where the applicant contended that his mitigating factors should have attracted an earlier eligibility date – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs: cocaine, 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), amphetamine, cannabis and growth hormone – where the sentencing judge reviewed the sentences of three other offenders involved in the cocaine trafficking enterprise – where the applicant’s substantial business was in trading methamphetamines – where the applicant and the three other offenders had varying levels of culpability and mitigating circumstances – whether the applicant’s sentence lacks parity with sentences imposed on other offenders R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, considered R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, considered R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	A W Bale and Son for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent