R v Cook

COURT OF APPEAL

[1995] QCA 245

DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

MOYNIHAN J

CA No 109 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

BRETT ANTHONY COOK

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 27/04/95
MOYNIHAN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the
imposition of a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a
recommendation that he be eligible to be considered for parole
from 11 May 1995 on conditions relating to a problem that he
apparently has with drug abuse. He had pleaded guilty to the
supply of the dangerous drug heroin. The weight in question
was a deal of .06 grams and the drug was approximately 40 per
cent pure heroin.

The sentencing Court was told to the effect that the applicant had said in the course of the transaction that it was good gear and that the recipient ought to be careful. That and other considerations appearing on the record seem to establish that he was implicated rather more in the transaction than he would now have it. He would now have it that he simply intervened to hasten up a transaction between his de facto wife and what in the event was a police undercover agent and that he did so in order to get back to Court for proceedings which were then in train against him in respect of another matter. That of course means that he was on bail at the time of the commission of the offence.

It is rightly, in my view, submitted by the Crown Prosecutor
that the sentence which was imposed was towards the bottom of
the available range of sentences in the circumstances and the
recommendation as to eligibility was a quite generous one, no
doubt recognising such aspects as were in the applicant's
favour.
The applicant has a significant criminal history which relates
not just to drug offences but to various other offences which
show a general problem that he has had, apparently for some
time, in terms of dealing with the law and acting lawfully.
He has, as I say, had a long and significant, in that respect,
criminal history.

When one takes the considerations to which I have adverted into account, I do not think it can be said that the sentencing discretion has miscarried in any sense found in the intervention of this Court and I would refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: I also agree.

DAVIES JA: The orders are as indicated by Mr Justice

Moynihan. The Court will now adjourn to reconstitute.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cook involves the applicant, Brett Anthony Cook, who is appealing against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility from 11 May 1995. The sentence was imposed following Cook's guilty plea to the supply of 0.06 grams of approximately 40% pure heroin. The applicant claims that he merely intervened in a drug deal between his de facto wife and an undercover police agent to return to court for another matter, suggesting a lesser role in the offence than established by the evidence. However, the Court was presented with information indicating that Cook had a more significant involvement in the transaction, including making a comment about the quality of the drugs.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was within the appropriate range and whether the recommendation regarding parole eligibility was appropriate. The Crown Prosecutor argued that the sentence was towards the lower end of the range and that the parole recommendation was generous, taking into account the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The Court also considered Cook's extensive criminal history, which included various offences beyond drug-related crimes, indicating a persistent issue with abiding by the law.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and that the parole recommendation was reasonable, given the circumstances. The judges agreed that the lower court had not misapplied its sentencing discretion. The Court refused the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence, with the orders as directed by Moynihan J.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established