R v Corbett - [2018] QCA 341

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Corbett [2018] QCA 341

PARTIES:

R
v
CORBETT, Brett Andrew
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 77 of 2018
SC No 1759 of 2017
SC No 360 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 March 2018 (Ryan J)

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2018

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Morrison and McMurdo JJA

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted of trafficking in, supply of and possession of methylamphetamine and a number of summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment on the trafficking count with no order as to parole – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive – where the applicant contends that the cases on which the prosecutor relied at sentencing were examples of more serious offending than his – where the applicant contends that the available range for an offender in his circumstances was eight to nine and a half years imprisonment before allowance for a guilty plea and other mitigating factors – where the applicant contends that his early plea of guilty, his remorse, the fact that his offending was largely the result of his addiction, and his co-operation with the authorities should have been reflected in a parole eligibility date at less than one-third of the sentence – whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances

R v Abbott[2017] QCA 57, applied
R v Cameron[2014] QCA 55, considered
R v Duong (2015) 255 A Crim R 57; [2015] QCA 170, cited
R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, considered
R v Strutt[2017] QCA 195, applied
R v Tran[2014] QCA 90, considered
R v Tran; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2018] QCA 22, considered

COUNSEL:

D R Gates for the applicant
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dib & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, with no order as to parole, in respect of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine. He was convicted and not punished in respect of a further six counts of supplying methylamphetamine and one count of possessing a quantity of the drug in excess of 200 grams. He was similarly convicted and not further punished in respect of summary offences of possessing a mobile phone used in connection with supplying drugs, receiving tainted property ($520), possessing a set of scales suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence, obstructing a police officer and possessing…

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 Corbett

Details

AGLC: R v Corbett [2018] QCA 341
Case: [2018] QCA 341
Decision Date: 7 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Corbett concerned the applicant's challenge against the sentence imposed following his conviction for various drug-related offences, including trafficking in, supply of, and possession of methylamphetamine, and several summary offences. The applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment on the trafficking count with no order as to parole eligibility. He sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, considering the applicant's early guilty plea, remorse, the influence of his addiction, and his co-operation with authorities. The applicant argued that the prosecutor's reliance on more severe cases at sentencing had skewed the sentencing process, and that the appropriate range for his sentence should have been between eight to nine and a half years before accounting for mitigating factors. The applicant further contended that his early plea of guilty and other mitigating factors warranted a parole eligibility date at less than one-third of the sentence.

The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant but ultimately found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court took into account the gravity of the applicant's offences, the need for general deterrence, and the principle that sentences should be proportionate to the offending. Despite the applicant's mitigating factors, the court was not persuaded that the sentence was disproportionate given the nature and extent of the crimes committed.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, affirming the trial judge's decision. No further appeal against the sentence was permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

CITATION:	R v Corbett [2018] QCA 341
PARTIES:	R v CORBETT, Brett Andrew (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 77 of 2018 SC No 1759 of 2017 SC No 360 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 March 2018 (Ryan J)
DELIVERED ON:	7 December 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 September 2018
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted of trafficking in, supply of and possession of methylamphetamine and a number of summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment on the trafficking count with no order as to parole – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive – where the applicant contends that the cases on which the prosecutor relied at sentencing were examples of more serious offending than his – where the applicant contends that the available range for an offender in his circumstances was eight to nine and a half years imprisonment before allowance for a guilty plea and other mitigating factors – where the applicant contends that his early plea of guilty, his remorse, the fact that his offending was largely the result of his addiction, and his co-operation with the authorities should have been reflected in a parole eligibility date at less than one-third of the sentence – whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances R v Abbott[2017] QCA 57, applied R v Cameron[2014] QCA 55, considered R v Duong (2015) 255 A Crim R 57; [2015] QCA 170, cited R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, considered R v Strutt[2017] QCA 195, applied R v Tran[2014] QCA 90, considered R v Tran; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2018] QCA 22, considered
COUNSEL:	D R Gates for the applicant D Nardone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Dib & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent