R v Dean - [1999] QCA 378

99.378

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA AMBROSE J CULLINANE J

CA No 237 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

DEBRA JOY DEAN

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 08/09/99
080999 T6-7/HMH8 M/T COA221/99
AMBROSE J: The applicant for leave to appeal against
sentence is a 34-year-old woman who, in October 1998, had
possession of something over 200 grams of methylamphetamine.

She was sentenced on 6 July 1999 to a term of five years' imprisonment with a recommendation for release upon parole after serving 18 months. The offence was a serious one because she was carrying about 100 times the amount specified in the third schedule.

The evidence disclosed that she was travelling from Brisbane to Western Australia and was at the Brisbane Airport for that purpose when she got sick and was discovered in a very serious condition in a toilet. She was taken to hospital and it was there discovered that a number of condoms which had been inserted internally had apparently leaked and methylamphetamine had been discharged into her vaginal area.

She gave a statement to the effect that she had met a man in Perth on one of a number of trips that she had made there and, after a discussion with him concerning her financial embarrassment, he had asked her whether she would be prepared to bring something from Brisbane back to Perth for a fee of $3,000. She agreed to do this. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the arrangement further.

She suspected that she would be bringing back something
illegal, she was a bit concerned about it but was persuaded
by the promise of payment of $3,000 to go ahead with it.
080999 T6-7/HMH8 M/T COA221/99
Eventually, after a discussion with this man over the
telephone on the morning that she was to leave to travel to
Perth, she took possession of methylamphetamine and she put
some of it into condoms and inserted them into her vagina.
Another package was secreted in her luggage. The evidence
disclosed that, all told, she had in her possession 205
grams approximately of methylamphetamine. She pleaded
guilty to the offence and the sentencing Judge, as I have
indicated, imposed a penalty of five years' imprisonment
with a recommendation that she be eligible for parole after
serving 18 months.

She seeks leave to appeal not on the basis that the sentence was outside the range, which was agreed I think, in effect, to be somewhere within four years' imprisonment and six years' imprisonment, but on the basis that the sentencing Judge made errors discernible from his sentencing remarks in that he failed to make any, or at least any sufficient allowance for a serious physical condition that resulted to the applicant in the area of her vagina when this drug was released internally. It was also asserted that he wrongly assumed, from his sentencing remarks, that she must have been involved previously in this sort of couriering operation.

I must say, for my part, looking at His Honour's sentencing
remarks,…

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 Dean

Details

AGLC: R v Dean [1999] QCA 378
Case: [1999] QCA 378
Decision Date: 8/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dean, the applicant, Debra Joy Dean, sought leave to appeal against her sentence of five years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after 18 months, imposed for possession of over 200 grams of methylamphetamine. The primary legal issue the Court of Appeal had to determine was whether the sentencing judge had erred in his sentencing remarks by failing to sufficiently consider the physical injuries sustained by the applicant due to the leakage of methylamphetamine and whether he wrongly assumed her prior involvement in similar courier operations. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge overlooked the serious physical condition she suffered from the internal leakage of the drug and that he incorrectly presumed she had prior experience in drug trafficking.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge did not ignore or undervalue the significant physical injury the applicant suffered. The judge had considered the medical evidence and the consequences of the injury, which included the need for ongoing vaginal dilation and potential reconstructive surgery. The judge also expressed scepticism about the applicant’s claims of innocence and coercion but clarified that he would not increase her punishment based on those claims. The Court concluded that the judge had appropriately balanced the severity of the offence, which involved transporting a large quantity of methylamphetamine, against the personal circumstances of the applicant, including her injuries. Therefore, the Court found no grounds for error in the sentencing remarks and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence imposed on Debra Joy Dean, finding that the sentencing judge had correctly considered all relevant factors, including the physical injury sustained by the applicant. The application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders