SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Challacombe [2009] QCA 314
PARTIES:
R
v
CHALLACOMBE, Glen Nicholas
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 136 of 2009
SC No 52 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
20 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
13 October 2009
JUDGES:
Keane, Holmes and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, and one count of possessing a sum of money obtained from trafficking – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment for trafficking offence and lesser concurrent terms for other offences – where applicant eligible for parole after serving 18 months in actual custody – where offending of comparatively low level and applicant had strong personal factors in mitigation of sentence – where sentencing judge informed by consideration of general deterrence – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Casagrande [2009] QCA 1, cited
R v Cooney; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 414, cited
R v McAway [2008] QCA 401, cited
R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435, cited
R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379, citedCOUNSEL:
D R Lynch for the applicant
P F Rutledge for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Winning Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
KEANE JA: On 26 May 2009 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of three contraventions of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) ("the Act"). These offences were:
Count 1:
trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy") between
1 September 2007 and 23 February 2008;
Count 2:unlawful possession of the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and ecstasy in a quantity exceeding 2.0 grams on 22 February 2008;
Count 3:on 22 February 2008 possessing a sum of money obtained from trafficking in dangerous drugs knowing it to have been obtained from the trafficking.
The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment in respect of count 1 and to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 12 months in respect of the other counts. It was ordered that he be eligible for consideration for parole on 25 November 2010, ie after serving 18 months of his sentence in actual custody.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against these sentences on the ground that they are "manifestly excessive". Obviously it is the sentence for the trafficking offence which must be the focus of attention on his application.
The applicant's role in the trafficking operation was evidently at a relatively low level involving about 1,000 ecstasy tablets and two bags of methylamphetamine and a turnover of between $24,000 and $30,000 over a period of four…
Continue reading R v Challacombe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Challacombe [2009] QCA 314
- Case
- [2009] QCA 314
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the nature of the offending, the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the sentencing principles relevant to the case. The court examined the sentence in the context of the low level of the offending and the personal factors in mitigation of the sentence, which included the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation and the impact of the sentence on his family. The court also considered the sentencing judge's reliance on general deterrence as a factor in imposing the sentence.
The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the personal factors in mitigation of the sentence and had given appropriate weight to the need for general deterrence. The court found that the sentence reflected a fair balance between the need to deter the applicant and others from engaging in similar offending, and the need to have regard to the personal circumstances of the applicant. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offending, and that there were no grounds for interfering with the sentence. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.