R v Chandler

[2010] QCA 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chandler [2010] QCA 21

PARTIES:

R
v
CHANDLER, Phillip John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 257 of 2009
SC No 1368 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2010

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Keane JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

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 on a guilty plea of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor of a controlled drug with the intention that it be used to manufacture a controlled drug in contravention of s 307.11 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – where applicant collected three parcels containing approximately three kilograms of pseudoephedrine in total – where applicant pleaded guilty on an ex officio indictment – where applicant had a criminal history including convictions for minor drug offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.11

R v Jimson[2009] QCA 183, cited
R v McAway[2008] QCA 401, applied
R v Ruha, Ruha & Harris; ex parte Cth DPP, [2010] QCA 10, applied
R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the applicant
G R Rice SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Buckland Criminal Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

1. CHIEF JUSTICE:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA.  I agree that the application should be refused for those reasons.

1. KEANE JA: On 28 September 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled precursor of a controlled drug with the intention that it be used to manufacture a controlled drug in contravention of s 307.11 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. It was declared that 187 days of pre-sentence custody was time served under the sentence.

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the general ground that it was manifestly excessive.  More particularly, it is said that an examination of comparable sentences shows that a head sentence of four years imprisonment with release after 33 per cent to 50 per cent was the proper sentence.

Circumstances of the offence

1. In October 2007 two parcels from Thailand containing pseudoephedrine addressed to a post office box at Nambour operated by the applicant were intercepted by customs officers in Sydney.  The parcels were reconstituted with white powder and were forwarded (after the insertion of a…