R v Cant - [2016] QCA 52

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cant [2016] QCA 52

PARTIES:

R
v
CANT, Craig
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 97 of 2015
SC No 549 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of sentence: 22 April 2015

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

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 trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, nine counts of supply of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and two counts of producing the dangerous drug cannabis – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment – where the applicant had a significant criminal history – where the applicant commenced offending within three months of being released on parole – where the transactions were above street level – where the applicant was 51 and 52 years old at the time of the offending – where the sentencing judge took into account the sentences imposed on the applicant’s co-offenders – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the sentencing hearing proceeded as an uncontested hearing on an agreed schedule of facts – where the applicant submitted he was tricked into being sentenced on incorrect facts and was advised by his counsel that he could fix errors later on – where the applicant signed written instructions acknowledging he had been taken through the schedule of facts – where counsel said in open court, and heard by the applicant, that the applicant understood he would be sentenced on the basis of the schedule of facts – whether the applicant was not properly represented and was sentenced on the basis of a factual error of substance

R v Boyd[2013] QCA 335, cited
R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291, cited
R v Cameron[2014] QCA 55, cited
R v Cant [2015] QSC 311, considered
R v Carey[2015] QCA 51, cited
R v C’Ward[2014] QCA 15, cited
R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464; [2013] QCA 51, cited
R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, cited
R v Prendergast[2012] QCA 164, cited
R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Cowen QC, with S J Hedge, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jackson J and the order proposed by his Honour.
PHILIP McMURDO JA: I agree with…

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 Cant

Details

AGLC: R v Cant [2016] QCA 52
Case: [2016] QCA 52
Decision Date: 4 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cant involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the sentencing court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related offences, including trafficking and supply of methylamphetamine, and producing cannabis. The applicant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. The applicant had a significant criminal history, including reoffending shortly after release from parole. The sentencing judge considered the sentences imposed on the applicant's co-offenders in the sentencing process. The appeal focused on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the applicant was inadequately represented during the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the applicant was inadequately represented, leading to sentencing on incorrect facts. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, given his age and the nature of his criminal history. The applicant also argued that he was not properly represented and was sentenced based on an incorrect factual basis. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the adequacy of legal representation in its determination.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It considered the applicant's criminal history, the nature and scale of the offending, and the sentences imposed on co-offenders. The court determined that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. Regarding the applicant's claim of inadequate representation, the court found that the applicant had acknowledged understanding the schedule of facts and had not been misled. The applicant's claim was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence. The applicant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive was rejected, and the claim of inadequate representation was also dismissed. The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Cant [2016] QCA 52
PARTIES:	R v CANT, Craig (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 97 of 2015 SC No 549 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of sentence: 22 April 2015
DELIVERED ON:	4 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
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 trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, nine counts of supply of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and two counts of producing the dangerous drug cannabis – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment – where the applicant had a significant criminal history – where the applicant commenced offending within three months of being released on parole – where the transactions were above street level – where the applicant was 51 and 52 years old at the time of the offending – where the sentencing judge took into account the sentences imposed on the applicant’s co-offenders – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the sentencing hearing proceeded as an uncontested hearing on an agreed schedule of facts – where the applicant submitted he was tricked into being sentenced on incorrect facts and was advised by his counsel that he could fix errors later on – where the applicant signed written instructions acknowledging he had been taken through the schedule of facts – where counsel said in open court, and heard by the applicant, that the applicant understood he would be sentenced on the basis of the schedule of facts – whether the applicant was not properly represented and was sentenced on the basis of a factual error of substance R v Boyd[2013] QCA 335, cited R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291, cited R v Cameron[2014] QCA 55, cited R v Cant [2015] QSC 311, considered R v Carey[2015] QCA 51, cited R v C’Ward[2014] QCA 15, cited R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464; [2013] QCA 51, cited R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, cited R v Prendergast[2012] QCA 164, cited R v Ryan [2014] QCA 78, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Cowen QC, with S J Hedge, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent