R v Christie - [2000] QCA 165

[2000] QCA 165

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
DOUGLAS J

[R v CHRISTIE]

CA No 430 of 1999

THE QUEEN

DONOVAN KIMBAL CHRISTIE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/05/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant was charged with one count of possession of a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine, with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of possession of a dangerous drug, cannabis. He changed his plea to guilty part way through the first day of a trial after a ruling of law was given to the effect that it was open for the jury to find he had possession of the drugs in the ordinary sense or deemed possession under section 57C of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986.

The applicant was sentenced in respect of the possession of methylamphetamine with a circumstance of aggravation to eighteen months imprisonment, and in respect of the possession of a dangerous drug, cannabis, to three months imprisonment, concurrent with each other but cumulative upon an effective 11 month sentence imposed in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court on 18 June 1999 for other drug offences and for the breach of a suspended sentence.

The applicant, who is 25 years old, had an extensive drug-related criminal history commencing on 18 February 1993, with convictions and fines for possession of a dangerous drug and possession of a pipe. In October that year he was also convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment and lesser concurrent sentences in respect of supplying a dangerous drug to another, possession of a thing used in connection with the commission of a crime, possession of a dangerous drug (cannabis), possession of a dangerous drug (amphetamine), and possession of a dangerous drug (lysergide). On 4 February 1994 he was sentenced to 80 hours community service for stealing. On 14 October 1994 he was sentenced to five months imprisonment, suspended for two years, for possession of a dangerous drug and to one month imprisonment, suspended for two years, for possession of a pipe.

He did not come to the attention of police again until late 1997, when he was convicted of two counts of possessing dangerous drugs and possession of property suspected of being the proceeds of an offence under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986. He was sentenced to a total of eight months imprisonment fully suspended for three years. In December 1998 he was given a fine option order in respect of a traffic offence but that order was revoked on 4 June 1999 as he had completed none of the 29 hours community service.

On 18 June 1999 he was convicted of possessing a dangerous drug, possession of property suspected of having been used in connection with a dangerous drug, breach of bail, possessing dangerous drug, breach of the earlier order to suspended sentence. He was ordered to serve the eight months suspended sentence and was, as has been mentioned, given, in effect, a three month cumulative sentence in respect of the other charges, making an effective 11 month sentence.

The facts…

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 Christie

Details

AGLC: R v Christie [2000] QCA 165
Case: [2000] QCA 165
Decision Date: 08/05/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Christie, heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, involved the applicant, Donovan Kimbal Christie, who appealed against a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for possession of methylamphetamine with a circumstance of aggravation and three months' imprisonment for possession of cannabis, the latter sentence to run concurrently with the former. Christie had a lengthy criminal history involving drug-related offences and had been sentenced previously for similar crimes. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence imposed, which Christie argued was manifestly excessive. The applicant's counsel argued that the drug in question belonged to a friend and that Christie had not intended to sell it, but this claim was rejected by the trial court. The appeal court reviewed the sentence, considering the nature of the offence, the breach of a suspended sentence, and Christie's criminal history, ultimately finding the sentence to be within the appropriate range.

The legal issues in this appeal focused on whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge's editing of her sentencing remarks had any impact on the appeal. The appeal court examined whether the sentence was commensurate with similar cases, taking into account the quantity and purity of the drug, the circumstances of the offence, and Christie's criminal history. The court also addressed the propriety of the editing of the sentencing remarks, concluding that such editing was standard practice and did not affect the substantive reasoning of the trial judge.

In its reasoning, the court compared Christie's case with other cases where similar sentences were imposed for possession of methylamphetamine. The court found that Christie's sentence, while at the higher end of the range, was not manifestly excessive given the aggravating factors present in his case, such as the breach of a suspended sentence and his extensive criminal history. The court also dismissed the argument that the editing of the sentencing remarks had any impact on the appeal, finding that the edited remarks did not substantively alter the trial judge's reasoning. Therefore, the appeal court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders