R v Clanfield - [2022] QCA 147

[2022] QCA 147

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO JA
DALTON JA
FLANAGAN JA

CA No 98 of 2022
DC No 30 of 2022
DC No 110 of 2022

CLANFIELD, Jordan Gregory James Applicant

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST 2022

JUDGMENT

FLANAGAN JA: By his pleas of guilty on 28 April 2022, the applicant was convicted of 10 counts of supplying a dangerous drug, one of possessing a dangerous drug, one of possessing anything used in connection with the commission of the crime of supplying dangerous drugs and three summary charges. These offences were committed in 2020 and early 2021. At the time, the applicant was subject to three suspended sentences imposed by the Rockhampton Magistrates Court of three, five and nine months, each with an operational period of two years. On 31 January 2020, this operational period was extended by the Rockhampton Magistrates Court by one month.

Nine of the supply charges (counts 1 to 9) concerned the commercial supply of methylamphetamine and an unknown dangerous drug. Count 10 related to acts preparatory for the supply of cannabis. As to the possession count (count 11) police conducted a search of the applicant’s address on 2 February 2021 and located a number of clip seal bags containing a total of 0.023 grams of methylamphetamine. Police also located a mobile phone (count 12) which revealed the supplies constituting counts 1 to 9. The three summary charges relate to drug paraphernalia located by police in the search conducted on 2 February 2021 and an earlier search conducted on 21 November 2019.

The learned sentencing judge imposed the following sentence:

Counts 1 – 9: Two and a half years imprisonment on each count.
Count 10:       Six months imprisonment.
Count 11:       Six months imprisonment.
Count 12:       Convicted and not further punished.
For each of the three summary charges:        One month imprisonment.

In relation to the three suspended sentences imposed on 1 February 2019 by the Rockhampton Magistrates Court, his Honour found that by the applicant’s pleas of guilty the breach of those suspended sentences was established. Each of the suspended sentences of three, five and nine months was activated in full. His Honour ordered that all sentences including the activated suspended sentences be served concurrently. The effective head sentence was therefore two and a half years. His Honour declared 74 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 2 February 2021 and 16 April 2021 to be deemed time already served under the sentence pursuant to section 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). His Honour set the applicant’s parole release date at less than one third of the head sentence of two and a half years fixing the date at 29 August 2022.

The applicant, who was self-represented before this Court but was represented by counsel before the learned sentencing judge, seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

For the following reasons, the sentence imposed cannot be considered manifestly excessive…

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 Clanfield

Details

AGLC: R v Clanfield [2022] QCA 147
Case: [2022] QCA 147
Decision Date: 12 AUGUST 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Jordan Gregory James Clanfield, was convicted on various counts of drug-related offences, including supplying dangerous drugs, possessing a dangerous drug, possessing anything used in connection with the commission of a crime, and three summary charges. The offences were committed in 2020 and early 2021, during which time the applicant was subject to three suspended sentences imposed by the Rockhampton Magistrates Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charges on 28 April 2022, leading to the imposition of a sentence by the learned sentencing judge. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The key legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances.

The court considered the applicant's age, criminal history, the nature of the offending, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences. The court noted that the applicant's age at the time of the offending was 32, and 34 at the time of sentencing. The applicant had a criminal history in both Queensland and New South Wales, which included drug-related offences and weapons offences. The court also considered that the applicant had taken steps towards rehabilitation, such as commencing a painting business and attending drug counselling sessions. The court found that the applicant's sentence, when considered in light of the concurrent activation of the suspended sentences and the fixing of a parole date at less than one third of the head sentence, could not be considered manifestly excessive.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offending. The court further held that appealable error is not demonstrated by comparative references to other cases, even if the circumstances of those cases were similar to the applicant's case. The applicant's argument based on a single judge decision was deemed insufficient to demonstrate an error in the imposition of the sentence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders