SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Chen [2008] QCA 332
PARTIES:
R
v
CHEN, Ivan
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA 17 of 2008
SC No 481 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
16 October 2008
JUDGES:
Holmes and Fraser JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Application for leave to appeal allowed.
2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of varying the order below by adjusting the declaration of time served under the sentence to 1,172 days.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, nine counts of possession of dangerous drugs, one count of possession of property obtained from trafficking, and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice – where applicant sentenced to 14 years on the trafficking count, with lesser sentences for other drug-related counts to be served concurrently, and to two years for perverting the course of justice, to be served cumulatively – where applicant had some criminal history, which did not include drug offences – where applicant’s attempts to pervert the course of justice involved soliciting another to take responsibility for heroin owned by the applicant, which had been found in the course of a police search – whether sentences, taken separately and in total, were manifestly excessive
R v Chadwick; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2001] QCA 94, considered
R v French [2004] QCA 263, considered
R v Harnden [2003] QCA 340, considered
R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, applied
R v Omer-Noori [2006] QCA 311, considered
R v Truong and Nguyen [2001] QCA 98, applied
R v W [1998] QCA 90, considered
R v West [2007] QCA 347, consideredCOUNSEL:
The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
S G Bain for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him for one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, nine counts of possession of dangerous drugs (heroin, cocaine, 3-4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa), one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and one count of possession of property obtained from trafficking. The longest of the sentences, 14 years, was imposed on the trafficking count; concurrent sentences ranging between six months and four years were imposed on the possession of dangerous drugs and possession of property counts; and two years imprisonment, to be served cumulatively, was imposed on the count of attempting to pervert the course of justice. A period which the applicant had served on remand was…
Continue reading R v Chen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Chen [2008] QCA 332
- Case
- [2008] QCA 332
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were manifestly excessive, warranting interference by the appellate court. The court considered the applicant's criminal history, which included some prior offences but no drug-related convictions, as well as the nature and severity of the current offences. The applicant's attempts to pervert the course of justice involved soliciting another person to take responsibility for heroin found during a police search.
The court examined the principles governing sentencing and the principle of proportionality. It found that while the applicant's sentences for drug-related offences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive, considering the nature and quantity of the drugs involved. However, the court did find that the sentence for the attempt to pervert the course of justice was excessive. The court concluded that the total sentence, taking into account the cumulative nature of the sentence for perverting the course of justice, was manifestly excessive. The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence by adjusting the declaration of time served to 1,172 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal allowed.
2. Appeal allowed only to the extent of varying the order below by adjusting the declaration of time served under the sentence to 1,172 days.
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.