R v Cooney

Case [2004] QCA 244


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cooney [2004] QCA 244

PARTIES:

R
v
COONEY, Sean Lesley
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 106 of 2004
SC No 463 of 2003
SC No 81 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 July 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, cocaine, exceeding 200 grams – where entered guilty plea – where sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment with recommendation for post-prison community based release after three and a half years – where applicant addicted to cocaine and couriered the drugs to cancel a debt to his supplier – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Chitty [1990] 2 Qd R 431, distinguished
R v Glynn
[1990] CCA 66; CA No 28 of 1990, 10 April 1990, distinguished
R v McAnally [2001] QCA 66; CA No 297 of 2000, 28 February 2001, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter SC for the applicant
M J Copley for the appellant

SOLICITORS:

Howard Saggers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT:  The applicant pleaded guilty on 22 March 2004 to one count of possession of a dangerous drug, cocaine, with a circumstance of aggravation that it exceeded 200 grams.  He was sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation for eligibility for post prison community based release after three and a half years.  He contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive. 

The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment. 

The pertinent facts are as follows.  On 9 May 2002 at Cairns International Airport an Australian customs officer intercepted the applicant who had flown domestically on an international carrier from Sydney to Cairns.  He was travelling with another man, David Beattie, on airline tickets issued under false names.  Customs dogs reacted to the applicant who was then detained and searched.  He was carrying a large amount of cash in $100 notes which he estimated to customs officers at around $50,000.  A scan of a novel and torch in his possession gave a positive result for the presence of cocaine but none was found.  He was in possession of a New South Wales driver's licence in the name of Collins and a Northern Territory licence in the name of Robinson.  Both licences carried his photograph and he admitted the licences were false.  He was eventually released without charge but the customs officers, hardly surprisingly, contacted…

Continue reading R v Cooney

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cooney [2004] QCA 244
Case
[2004] QCA 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, Cooney, who was convicted of possessing a dangerous drug, cocaine, exceeding 200 grams. The applicant had entered a guilty plea, and the sentence imposed was eight and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after three and a half years. The applicant, who was addicted to cocaine, had couriered the drugs to cancel a debt to his supplier. The central issue in the appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. It was noted that the applicant had acted under duress, being compelled to courier the drugs due to his addiction and the debt he owed to his supplier. However, the court found that while the circumstances were mitigating, they did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The gravity of the offence, the quantity of the drug involved, and the potential harm to the community were significant factors that justified the sentence imposed.

The court held that the sentence, while harsh, was not manifestly excessive. It was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a consistent approach to sentencing in cases involving significant quantities of dangerous drugs. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.