R v Crook - [2012] QCA 305

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crook [2012] QCA 305

PARTIES:

R
v
CROOK, Joel Peter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 152 of 2012
DC No 105 of 2012
DC No 137 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Applegarth 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 – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing the dangerous drug cannabis in a quantity that exceeded 500 grams and one count of unlawfully supplying that drug to another person – where applicant was sentenced on each count to a period of six months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of nine months – where applicant contends sentence was manifestly excessive – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Adams [2003] QCA 22, cited
R v Applewaite and Jones (1996) 90 A Crim R 167; [1996] QCA 533, cited
R v Barnes [2004] QCA 459, cited
R v Doraho [2011] QCA 29, cited
R v Meid [2006] QCA 124, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Applegarth J.

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Applegarth J and the order he proposes.

APPLEGARTH J: The applicant pleaded guilty on 18 May 2012 to one count of possessing the dangerous drug cannabis in a quantity that exceeded 500 grams, and one count that he unlawfully supplied cannabis to another person. On each count he was sentenced to a period of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of nine months. No further penalty was imposed in respect of a summary offence that on 22 September 2010 he had in his possession a mobile phone that had been used in connection with the supply of a dangerous drug.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed for the indictable offences on the grounds that each sentence was manifestly excessive.

On 22 September 2010 police conducting routine patrols noticed the applicant’s vehicle parked illegally at Snapper Rocks at Coolangatta. At the request of police the applicant opened the boot of his car, and the police detected a strong smell of cannabis. The applicant claimed that the garbage bags in the boot were just household rubbish. However, police opened one of them and observed cannabis that had been recently harvested. The applicant was arrested and asked if he had anything else…

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 Crook

Details

AGLC: R v Crook [2012] QCA 305
Case: [2012] QCA 305
Decision Date: 6 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Crook, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for possessing and unlawfully supplying cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams. The case was heard in the appellate court, which had to determine the validity of the appeal against the sentence. Crook argued that the sentence of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for nine months, was manifestly excessive.

The court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. In evaluating this, the court took into account the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, and the need for the sentence to reflect the community's standards of justice. It was noted that while the quantity of the drug was significant, the applicant had no prior convictions and had shown remorse.

The court found that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. It was deemed appropriate given the applicant's lack of prior convictions and his display of remorse. The court held that the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, and thus dismissed the appeal against sentence. The application for leave to appeal was therefore 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.

CITATION:	R v Crook [2012] QCA 305
PARTIES:	R v CROOK, Joel Peter (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 152 of 2012 DC No 105 of 2012 DC No 137 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	6 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Applegarth 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 – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing the dangerous drug cannabis in a quantity that exceeded 500 grams and one count of unlawfully supplying that drug to another person – where applicant was sentenced on each count to a period of six months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of nine months – where applicant contends sentence was manifestly excessive – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Adams [2003] QCA 22, cited R v Applewaite and Jones (1996) 90 A Crim R 167; [1996] QCA 533, cited R v Barnes [2004] QCA 459, cited R v Doraho [2011] QCA 29, cited R v Meid [2006] QCA 124, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent