R v Corrigan - [2001] QCA 251

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 251

PARTIES: R
v
CORRIGAN, Anthony William
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 272 of 2000
SC No 137 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 29 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 6 June 2001

JUDGES: Thomas JA, Muir and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:
1.   Leave to appeal granted

2.   The appeal is allowed and the sentence on the trafficking charge in count 1 is varied by replacing the sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years (cumulative on the sentence then being served) with a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years (cumulative on the sentence then being served)

3.   The remainder of the sentence and directions thereon will remain undisturbed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – TRAFFICKING – PRODUCING OR CULTIVATING – the applicant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and producing methylamphetamine whilst on parole

JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CUMULATIVE SENTENCES – where applicant’s sentence was made cumulative – s156 A Penalties and Sentences Act

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FRESH EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where evidence of applicant’s past co-operation with authorities was available but not presented at trial as it contained material which was both favourable and unfavourable favourable to the applicant – whether such evidence should be received on appeal – where such evidence on the whole did not place the applicant in a more favourable position – R v Maniadis distinguished – further evidence not received

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY – CO-OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where a co-offender was trafficking in a first schedule drug as well as the methylamphetamine – where this fact together with the applicant’s plea of guilty and co-operation with authorities should have resulted in a higher level of differentiation between the applicant’s sentence and the co-offender’s

Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s190
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s156A

R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415, considered
R v Everett [1999] QCA 14; CA No 311 of 1998, 5 February 1999, followed
R v Ianculescu [1999] QCA 439; CA No 194 of 1999, 22 October 1999, followed
R v Maclean and Bannerman [2000] QCA 367; CA Nos 71 & 98 of 2000, 12 September 2000, considered
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, distinguished
R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172; CA No 337 of 2000, 11 May 2001, considered
R v Tilley [1999] QCA 424; CA No 244 of 1999, 7 October 1999, followed

R v Walton CA No 338…

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 Corrigan

Details

AGLC: R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 251
Case: [2001] QCA 251
Decision Date: 29 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Corrigan involved the applicant who was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and producing methylamphetamine while on parole. The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The legal issues in the case were whether the evidence of the applicant's past cooperation with authorities, which was not presented at trial, should be received on appeal. The court also considered whether the applicant's sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the co-offender was also trafficking in a first schedule drug.

The court found that the evidence of the applicant's past cooperation with authorities should not be received on appeal as it did not place the applicant in a more favourable position. The court distinguished the case from R v Maniadis where the fresh evidence was more favourable to the applicant. The court also found that the applicant's sentence was not appropriate as it did not sufficiently differentiate between the applicant's sentence and the co-offender's sentence, despite the fact that the co-offender was also trafficking in a first schedule drug. The court considered that the applicant's plea of guilty and cooperation with authorities should have resulted in a higher level of differentiation between the applicant's sentence and the co-offender's.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The sentence on the trafficking charge in count 1 was varied by replacing the sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years with a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years. The remainder of the sentence and directions thereon will remain undisturbed. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the circumstances of each case when imposing a sentence and the need for a fair and just outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted

2. The appeal is allowed and the sentence on the trafficking charge in count 1 is varied by replacing the sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years (cumulative on the sentence then being served) with a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years (cumulative on the sentence then being served)

3. The remainder of the sentence and directions thereon will remain undisturbed

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 Corrigan [2001] QCA 251
PARTIES:	R v CORRIGAN, Anthony William (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 272 of 2000 SC No 137 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 June 2001
JUDGES:	Thomas JA, Muir and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Leave to appeal granted 2. The appeal is allowed and the sentence on the trafficking charge in count 1 is varied by replacing the sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years (cumulative on the sentence then being served) with a sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with parole after 3 years (cumulative on the sentence then being served) 3. The remainder of the sentence and directions thereon will remain undisturbed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – TRAFFICKING – PRODUCING OR CULTIVATING – the applicant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and producing methylamphetamine whilst on parole JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CUMULATIVE SENTENCES – where applicant’s sentence was made cumulative – s156 A Penalties and Sentences Act CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FRESH EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where evidence of applicant’s past co-operation with authorities was available but not presented at trial as it contained material which was both favourable and unfavourable favourable to the applicant – whether such evidence should be received on appeal – where such evidence on the whole did not place the applicant in a more favourable position – R v Maniadis distinguished – further evidence not received CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY – CO-OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where a co-offender was trafficking in a first schedule drug as well as the methylamphetamine – where this fact together with the applicant’s plea of guilty and co-operation with authorities should have resulted in a higher level of differentiation between the applicant’s sentence and the co-offender’s Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s190 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s156A R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415, considered R v Everett [1999] QCA 14; CA No 311 of 1998, 5 February 1999, followed R v Ianculescu [1999] QCA 439; CA No 194 of 1999, 22 October 1999, followed R v Maclean and Bannerman [2000] QCA 367; CA Nos 71 & 98 of 2000, 12 September 2000, considered R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, distinguished R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172; CA No 337 of 2000, 11 May 2001, considered R v Tilley [1999] QCA 424; CA No 244 of 1999, 7 October 1999, followed R v Walton CA No 338…