R v Denton - [1999] QCA 343

99.343

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P PINCUS JA THOMAS JA

CA No 168 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

STEVEN RAYMOND DENTON

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 20/08/99
200899 T9-11/RB28 M/T COA200/99
THOMAS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal
against sentences imposed in the Supreme Court in
respect of seven offences. The Court, at the time of
imposing sentences on these matters also imposed
sentences on six charges pending in the Magistrates
Court, but they are not the subject of this appeal. The
criminal conduct in those matters, however, may be
relevant in considering whether the total of the
sentences imposed was commensurate with the total of the
criminality for which he fell to be sentenced.

The offences with which we are concerned are his breach of a suspended sentence of 12 months for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle, three drug offences involving his possession of methylamphetamine and things for use in connection with its production, and three further subsequent drug offences involving the production of methylamphetamine and his possession of things connected with its production.

The sentences imposed were that the applicant serve the
whole of the remainder of the suspended sentence, 11
months, that he serve two and a half years cumulative
with respect to the first three drug charges (on
indictment 504) and that he serve a further cumulative
term of two and a half years with respect to the second
series of drug charges (on indictment 202). His Honour
made a recommendation for consideration of parole seven
months after the commencement of the latter cumulative
term. The effect of the sentences is of total
200899 T9-11/RB28 M/T COA200/99
consecutive imprisonment of five years and 11 months
with a recommendation for consideration of parole seven
months into the final term which, on the face of it, is
four years after the commencement of his custody with
respect to the present matters. A declaration was made
that he had already spent 173 days in pre-sentence
custody and that that should be deemed to be time
already served under the sentences.

The applicant was 23 years old at the time of the offences and is now 24. He has a criminal history that includes various offences of dishonesty, unlawful damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and drug offences which include possession of a dangerous drug, production of a dangerous drug and some other drug- related offences.

He was sentenced in October 1997 to 12 months for his unlawful use of a motor vehicle and because he breached the Bail Act subsequently he was dealt with for breach of the terms of that suspended sentence to the extent that he was required to serve one month of it. However, 11 months of that sentence still remained suspended and unserved when he committed the further breaches with which we are now concerned.

The circumstances of the drug offences may be briefly
stated. On 5 March 1999 police called at the
applicant's premises and apprehended him as he attempted

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 Denton

Details

AGLC: R v Denton [1999] QCA 343
Case: [1999] QCA 343
Decision Date: 20/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Denton, the applicant, Steven Raymond Denton, sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed by the Supreme Court for seven offences, including breach of a suspended sentence and multiple drug offences. Denton was sentenced to a total of five years and 11 months in prison, with a recommendation for parole consideration after seven months into the final term. Denton's criminal history included previous offences of dishonesty, unlawful damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and drug-related offences.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the totality of Denton's criminal conduct and whether the cumulative nature of the sentences was justified. The Court considered the principle of totality, which requires that the aggregate sentence should reflect the overall criminality of the offender, and the need to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences were manifestly excessive and did not adequately reflect the principle of totality. The Court noted that Denton was a young man with some prospect of rehabilitation and that a lengthy sentence at this stage of his life could unduly harm his rehabilitative prospects. The Court varied the sentences, ordering Denton to serve concurrent sentences of two and a half years for the first series of drug offences and four years for the second series of drug offences, with a recommendation for parole consideration after 18 months. The Court also ordered that the 11 months of the suspended sentence should be served concurrently with the other sentences.

The Court of Appeal granted Denton leave to appeal and varied the sentences as outlined. The President and Justice Pincus concurred with Justice Thomas's reasoning and orders.

Orders