R v Christensen - [2002] QCA 113

[2002] QCA 113

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
MUIR J

CA No 313 of 2001

THE QUEEN

KIM SOBORG CHRISTENSEN Applicant

and

CA No 314 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JEFF SOBORG CHRISTENSEN Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/03/2002

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Williams will deliver his reasons first.

WILLIAMS JA: Each of Kim Soborg Christensen and Jeff Soborg Christensen, has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed primarily for the offence of carrying on the business of trafficking in methylamphetamine.

It is convenient to deal with the application in so far as it involves Kim Soborg Christensen first. He was charged with a series of offences, the most significant being trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa, between 1 January 1997 and 17 January 2001.

The matter on sentence proceeded on the basis that they were the outside dates and that the offence in question had been carried on for a lengthy period, approximating a period of four years. As other offences supporting the charge of trafficking, there were four counts of supplying methylamphetamine, two counts of supplying cannabis sativa, two counts of producing methylamphetamine and one count of possessing things used in respect to the production.

Pleas of guilty were entered on the 29th of October 2001. By way of brief background, I would record that the applicant was 40 years of age at the time of sentence and that he had only a minor criminal history, which was of little relevance to the charges to which he pleaded guilty.

The evidence before the sentencing Judge established that this was a large scale trafficking operation. Kim Christensen was not an addict and it would appear was not even a user. This was purely a commercial operation. Over the four year period, it was accepted at sentence that a profit of some $500,000 had been generated from the illegal activity.

Throughout most of the period, the applicant had been operating a kitchen near Canungra. He was producing, or making a "cook" as the term was expressed in the material, about every 10 days. The profit from each "cook" was of the order of $140,000 to $150,000.

What makes the criminal activity even worse is that in about April 2000, he sold a small amount of methylamphetamine to a covert police operative. As a result of that sale, he was arrested in about May of 2000 and released on bail.

That release on bail in no way deterred the applicant from carrying on his criminal activities. Towards the end of May 2000, he became aware that a listening device had been placed in his house and correctly assumed that he was being investigated.

It was as a result of that, that he enlisted the assistance of his brother, Jeff, in the operation. He was arrested on the 11th of June 2000 with respect to certain production charges. As will be noted in a moment, it was on that date that his brother, Jeff, was apprehended and found to…

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 Christensen

Details

AGLC: R v Christensen [2002] QCA 113
Case: [2002] QCA 113
Decision Date: 22/03/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Christensen, both Kim Soborg Christensen and Jeff Soborg Christensen applied for leave to appeal against their sentences imposed primarily for the offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine. The primary dispute was the appropriateness of the sentences handed down by the sentencing judge. Kim Christensen had been involved in a large-scale trafficking operation, which had generated a profit of approximately $500,000 over a period of around four years. Jeff Christensen, on the other hand, was involved in the trafficking operation for a shorter period of 16 days but was implicated in two significant "cooks" with an expected gross profit of $70,000 to $77,000 for each.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed on both applicants were manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered all relevant factors, including the plea of guilty, in determining the appropriate sentence. The court considered relevant precedents and the nature of the trafficking operation in assessing the appropriate sentences for the applicants.

The court found that the sentences imposed on both applicants were within the appropriate range for the nature and scale of their involvement in the trafficking operation. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the plea of guilty, in determining the sentences. The court dismissed both applications for leave to appeal against sentence, affirming the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge.

The final orders of the court were that each of the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed, and the original sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were upheld.

Orders