R v Doble - [2007] VSCA 47

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No 52 of 2006
	v
WAYNE DOBLE

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, EAMES JA and KELLAM AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 February 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 March 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 47

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Trafficking in drugs of dependence (methylamphetamine, heroin) – Possession of drugs of dependence (cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamine) – Whether applicant wrongly sentenced on count of possession of cocaine upon basis that he was guilty of more serious offence of trafficking – R v Wylie [1989] VR 21 applied – Parity – Applicant one of 16 members of major drug ring sentenced by same judge – Total effective sentence of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, with non-parole period of 25 months, held not manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed – Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, ss 70, 71AC, 73(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Ms A Cannon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr M J Croucher	David Tonkin & Associates

MAXWELL P:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Eames JA. For the reasons given by his Honour, I too would refuse the application for leave to appeal.

EAMES JA:

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence imposed by a judge of the County Court on 2 March 2006. The applicant was one of some 16 members of a major drug syndicate controlled by one Dominic Parisi, all of whom pleaded guilty and were sentenced by the same judge, in a series of hearings. Before setting out the details of Doble’s offences and sentence it is appropriate to summarise the nature of the evidence concerning the drug ring and the applicant’s involvement.

A covert investigation by police led to the identification of the applicant as a person who obtained heroin and methylamphetamine from Parisi which was then onsold. There was a large number of telephone interceptions which produced substantial evidence against the applicant who during the time of the offences was running a used car business.

The applicant became involved in the drug syndicate through a friend, one Mike Harper, who was subsequently charged with and pleaded guilty to drug offences.

Harper had injured himself and was in hospital when the applicant took over Harper’s drug trafficking business in order – as the judge accepted – to help out Harper during the time of his convalescence. His Honour found that after initially trafficking on Harper’s behalf, the applicant “began to traffic to a limited degree on your own account.” His Honour summarised the evidence from the telephone intercepts, in which the applicant held discussions with Parisi about the raising of large sums of money to pay for drug deals. The applicant offered to put up cash for such deals. Telephone intercepts also disclosed the applicant exchanging telephone calls with Harper and Parisi arranging for the…

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 Doble

Details

AGLC: R v Doble [2007] VSCA 47
Case: [2007] VSCA 47
Decision Date: 22 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Doble involved an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, a member of a large drug trafficking ring. The applicant was found guilty of trafficking in methylamphetamine and heroin, and of possessing cocaine, Ecstasy, and amphetamine. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed by the court. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant was wrongly sentenced on the count of possession of cocaine given that he was found guilty of the more serious offence of trafficking, and whether the total sentence of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 months, was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing, noting that the applicant was one of 16 members of the drug ring sentenced by the same judge. The court found that the applicant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity was satisfied. The court also held that the applicant was not wrongly sentenced on the count of possession of cocaine, as the sentence for that offence was consistent with the sentence for the more serious offence of trafficking. The court referred to the decision in R v Wylie to support its reasoning.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that the total effective sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity was satisfied. The court noted that the applicant's sentence was consistent with the sentences imposed on the other members of the drug ring, and that the sentence for the possession of cocaine was consistent with the sentence for the more serious offence of trafficking. The court found that the applicant's total effective sentence of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 months, was not manifestly excessive and that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The court did not make any orders regarding the applicant's conviction or any other aspect of the case.

Orders